FCC Orders Anti-Monopoly Report Destroyed

jagger writes "According to an article on MSNBC a report, written by two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau, showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of 'on-location' news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. Senior managers at the agency ordered that 'every last piece' of the report be destroyed."

And?

[BoomerSooner]

We are surprised by this why?

So?

[Doc Ruby]

Who says we're surprised? Or even disappointed, strictly speaking, since Bush's job is to keep expectations low [google.com].

Slashdot isn't "Surprises for Nerds". But living down to abyssmal expectations when handling telecomm policy is important news. Especially when the Republican Congress is facing losing reelection in only 7 weeks, on November 7, 2006. It's your chance to surprise them for a change.

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Flamebait

I quote Bush saying it's his job to keep expectations low. I point out that "news" isn't necessarily "surprises". I point out that the news here is Bush living down to low expectations.

Then I point out that we can do something about it in 7 weeks by voting.

Which part do the TrollMods mod down as "Flamebait"? Of course it's the part about voting, which scares the hell out of them. All these Republican TrollMods have is power abuse. No surprises, not even disappointing, not really news.

Take it away from their elected versions Tuesday, November 7.

Re:So?

[MightyYar]

In this discussion, which is political in nature, I agree with you. But there is abuse in the anti-Bush camp as well. I'll be reading comments on a purely technical article, and some jackass political spammer will somehow weave an anti-Bush message into, like, Ruby on Rails! Then some other rabid anti-Bush nut comes in and mods the spammer up! WTF? It makes the whole moderation system sort of a joke. Presumably the meta-moderation would take care of it in the end, but it doesn't seem to.

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

I think the problem is that people have Bush hatred coming out of our ears. Because Rove has got the system figured out to the point where our usual election system for consensus and letting off steam (such as it is) is totally inadequate. In many countries, the level of anger at the government, even reflected in Bush's relatively high (at about 35% "approval") would see the the officials resigning, or even riots in the streets. Especially with such high stakes, like the Iraq War and Osama bin Missing. In that context, keeping discussions on-topic is very difficult, when so many are so preoccupied with matters so much weightier than Ruby on Rails.

It's not professional, but Slashdot isn't a professional board. It's not even a geek board - it's a nerd board, and nerds are known for socially inappropriate behavior, like blurting out the truth.

As for metamoderation, it's a joke. I post those rebuttals to moderations so metamod'ers will have more context to judge whether the mod is un/fair. But I don't see any real dampening. It winds up being just a battle of my post frequency karma vs their team of downmod points. That seems to at least allow my free speech to fill the vacuum of their supression. Which seems more American, anyway, or at least familiar to me, a New Yorker.

Re:

[Dachannien]

And then you go and start dropping Karl Rove's name as well. John Murtha and Barbara Boxer would be proud.

The truth is that the assault on our sensibilities comes from all sides. The Republican leadership uses the FUD of terrorism to scare us into supporting draconian suspensions of civil rights, while the Democratic leadership uses FUD about everything else to call our attention away from terrorism. Neither side is telling the truth.

With the GOP having control of the largest political target in the nati

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

How have Democrats distracted us from terrorism even one tiny bit? If anything, they're too pussy to call bullshit on all the fake terrorism the Republicans create as "reality" for their media manipulation.

All your crap about how Democrats are somehow pulling my strings, the strings of the media and the government - what are you talking about? Every charge I make against Bush is specific, substantiated, and true. You think Karl Rove is some kind of coatcheck girl at the White House? He's the stringpuller, t

Re:

[Dachannien]

Michael Powell was first appointed to the FCC board of commissioners by Clinton, and only later promoted to chair the commission by Bush. Powell continued to serve through 2005, and supported the measure to increase media ownership that's being discussed here. The contradictory report was completed in 2004, and it is likely (though not confirmed in media reports yet) that the actions taken to attempt to destroy the report happened around that time. Powell resigned in 2005 and was replaced as Chairman by

Re:

[ultranova]

But living down to abyssmal expectations when handling telecomm policy is important news. Especially when the Republican Congress is facing losing reelection in only 7 weeks, on November 7, 2006. It's your chance to surprise them for a change.

A question: if Republicans lose that election, then do you think that whoever wins them will be any different ? I'm not trying to flamebait, I'm honestly curious on whether Americans (I'm not one) think that elections make a difference.

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

Yes. They were different from Republicans when they had power before. They're different now, even without power. There's no reason, except baseless Republican apologies, to think they're as bad as Republicans.

Your .sig says "I want a Social Security safety net. You are free to become a stain on life's floor if you don't.". Social Security was created by President Roosevelt, a Democrat, after his Republican predecessors presided over the creation and beginning of the Great Depression that made its necessity obvious. Gore campaigned in 2000 on keeping it safe, in a "lockbox". Bush took over and started to try to sell it off, while robbing it to fund his $45-65 TRILLION debt. Social Security is just one basic, important system that Democrats can be trusted with, while Republicans will steal it, are stealing it.

I remember what the country was like before Republicans controlled the government. It was better. Right now, it's bad in a way few would have imagined before. Unless maybe they were Republicans.

Re:So?

[NoMaster]

Your .sig says "I want a Social Security safety net. You are free to become a stain on life's floor if you don't.". Social Security was created by President Roosevelt, a Democrat, after his Republican predecessors presided over the creation and beginning of the Great Depression that made its necessity obvious.

You missed the bit where the poster said he wasn't an American. SS is not an American invention.

Government-sponsored disability / unemployment schemes predate Roosevelt by ... well, lots! In the UK, social security arguably dates back to the reform of the Poor Laws in 1834. The first state-sponsored scheme dates back to Germany in 1883, under Otto von Bismark. France introduced one in 1906. The Brits introduced a national contributatory scheme in 1911.

As you say, Roosevelt introduced SS to the USA in the 1930s as part of his "new Deal" programs - which, initially, only protected unionised industrial workers. When social security really took off was after WWII - mostly as a sop to placate unemployed returned servicemen; you don't really want a few million trained, experienced, and armed militia getting upset with you...

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

There's a difference between "bad" and "worse". That stuff about Democrats taxing and spending is BS, when compared with Republicans. Reagan and Bush Sr/Jr have each spent more than every predecessor combined, with the intervening Clinton lowering spending. Reagan and Bush Sr raised taxes more than everyone else combined. Bush Jr has cheated by not even raising taxes as much as he's spent, creating a $45-65 TRILLION debt, which is even worse. While Clinton paid down the debt more than anyone ever before.

So since only Bush and Cheney are staring at being executed for treason, and then only hanged, we're faced with a different choice in a couple of months. Do you want to unacceptably bad Republicans, or the acceptably not so great Democrats? The real choice is obvious.

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not a Democrat, and that's not their message. Of course their message is "Democrats are great!" You want a good president, you got Clinton. Not great, but good, and better than "not bad". Probably the best since Truman, or maybe Kennedy (Democrats), who were very good or great, depending on what you value.

Unfortunately, our elections don't let us choose "the good one", just "the better" (or "not the worse"). That's one reason why I often talk about Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org] (IRV), or "proportional voting". And why I often say how the parties (politicspeak for "conspiracies") are the worst defect in our system. Until we can vote in a way where everyone's votes count, not just the winners, we don't really have democracy.

But we have something that's acceptably not so great, and we can use it to make it better, even good. Saying "they're all the same", when they're not, just none good enough, makes it impossible to use what we've got to get what we want.

Re:

[megaditto]

Because that's not the American Way.

That's not how this are normally done 'round here.

Memory hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather frightening that with every passing day, the US is getting closer and closer to Eric Blair's 1948 visions...

Re:

[ResidntGeek]

Oh, come on. You can't even do a quick check on google or wikipedia?

Re:Memory hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a slip. Eric Blair used "George Orwell" as his pen name, and "1984" was written in 1948.

Re:

[kfg]

And I don't think I'm the first to be taken by irony that Blair was brought to us by . . .Blair.

KFG

What a surprise

[Aexia]

The Bush administration disregards evidence contradicting their world view.

Re:

[pilgrim23]

any Administration does. Corruption and mis-managment is not owned by any one party or group.
poli: many
tics: small blood sucking creatures.
politics
Its time to kick the bad guys out and put our bad guys in!

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

The FCC wasn't nearly this bad in the past. Clinton's FCC, particularly under Reed Hunt, was pretty good, especially for the Internet and WiFi.

How come when Democrats have problems, no one defends them with "the Republicans are just as bad", even though Republicans, especially the ones we're dealing with now, are so much worse?

Go: Movement
Vern: Green
Ment: Thinking

OK, "vern" doesn't mean "green", but it's no sillier than your version.

Re:

[pilgrim23]

As I have no dog in either fight, not being a member of either major party, I think my statement stands. I do not know why one party does or does not do as you suggest. I would suggest.....ask them...

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

I didn't ask you why the Democrats don't defend themselves the way I mentioned. I asked why no one does - including people like you, who are quick to downplay Republican crimes like the one we're discussing in that way.

I'm not a member of any party. Who have you voted for in the past few elections? Then tell me you don't favor one party over another.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

There's lots of Bush crimes that aren't even against the law, or soon will have the law revised. I'm not bothering to make the distinction any more. Why should I, when it just gives them more places to hide?

Re:

[DoofusOfDeath]

The Bush administration disregards evidence contradicting their world view.

It would be more correct to say they hide evidence that discredits their public claims. Especially with regards to corporate interests, I have no reason to believe that the report contradicted their beliefs. It was just inconvenient to their goal enriching big businesses.

Re:

[Enderandrew]

I distrust anyone who falls strongly along partisan lines, or who insists the other side always lies while they always tell the truth.

Re:

[rabel]

yeah, I suspect so do a lot of people. What's your point? The post you're responding to does nothing of the sort.

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

Who appoints the chairman of the FCC? President Bush. Who sets FCC policy? The FCC chair. Ergo... you are seeing Bush administration policy in action.

Re:

[rwven]

So... If you are a hacker...and you get hired at a company who doesnt know you're a hacker...and you hack something "bad" while at work...by your logic, people outside watching your actions are watching the policy of your employer in action.

Sorry bub, but you're wrong. If *You* take an action then *You* are responsible.

Re:

[DAldredge]

The question is who can fire him. That has a much larger effect on the actions of some than who hired them does.

Re:

[Skye16]

There's a difference between appointing a dude to the FCC and appointing him to the chair. Clinton did the former, Bush the latter.

Seriously, though, you bring Clinton up as if that's some sort of defense. All it proves is that he was a tool too.

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

No, I don't realize that - because it's not factually accurate. Powell, as a member of the GOP, was appointed to the FCC board by Clinton in '97. Bush appointed him Chair to the FCC board in January of 2001. As a board member he was in no position to set or control policy. As the chairman of the FCC, under a president of the same political party, one can reasonably assume Michael Powell enacted policy as set by the Bush administration. These intellectual contortions to avoid that fact is just plain lame. Deal.

Re:What a surprise

[InsaneGeek]

I'd maybe go with that if he hadn't been so entwined with the whole content protection thought process that previous administration brought into play "DMCA, Sonny Bono act, v-chip, etc" along with the 5 dems that were the author of the DMCA2 (SSSCA/CBDTPA) which he was for as well. I will agree that Martin is not angel as the broadcast flag passed with no votes against it (which means he voted for it).

Earlier this year in regards to the broadcast flags hearings, 2 dems (Stevens & Inouye) stood up and basically said that "having no broadcast flag is a terrible thing content providers will stop providing, so we have to pass this as soon as possible". Which repub Sununu later said (I'll directly quote it because it is so good):

"The suggestion is that if we don't do this, it will stifle creativity. Well...we have now an unprecedented wave of creativity and product and content development...new business models, and new methodologies for distributing this content. The history of government mandates is that it always restricts innovation...why would we think that this one special time, we're going to impose a statutory government mandate on technology, and it will actually encourage innovation?"

The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc. Critize him for the correct things, and you will get people to listen, the witch hunt for trying to tie anything & everything to him is a problem because now people are tuning out because "the sky is falling" has been called and attributed to him too many times. I try to keep a little more of an open mind where I can then actually say "Bush is an ass because of this" and directly point to it, rather than say basically everything is his fault.

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc.

Two points:

1) Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina): Proposed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act [wikipedia.org], an onerous and horrific bill had it been passed. IOW: There are many Democrats on the side of media monopolies too.

2) President Bush is responsible for setting policy, and that includes FCC policy. However, that does not mean that President Bush had anything to do with the decision to destroy this document. In all likelihood, he didn't even know it existed. However, the President is still responsible for what happens under his watch as the policymaker. Boards of directors still hold CEOs accountable for serious mismanagement or criminal conduct by their staff, even if the CEO may not have been directly involved.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

I think every last shred of the parent's post should be destroyed.

Re:

[maynard]

Here [fcc.gov] is the complete list of commissioners and when they were appointed. Please note each of the appointments past Jan 20th, 2001. Now, who set FCC policy? Was it Democratic commissioners or Republican? You figure it out.

And quit selecting specific facts out of context in order to misrepresent the obvious. It's both disingenuous and easily refuted.

Re:What a surprise

[megaditto]

My point exactly.

It is all Clinton's and Democrats' fault, since they (Clinton and the Democrats) currently control the White House, the Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Republicans have no say whatsoever. As you know, Clinton took the funding away from FEMA before Katrina, appointed college dropouts to edit scientific reports on global warming, and even appointed this hack to head FCC.

Remember that Republicans have no power to subpoena anyone and launch an investigation into anything since they are the minority party, be it

-Iraq (damn Clinton got us there by getting CIA to lie about WMDs there),
-9/11 (Monica distracted Clinton from reading 'Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.' memo in August '01),
-gas prices (damn Democrats get donations from the oil companies),
-unemployment or healthcare (ditto),
-record deficit (damn liberals love their Big-Spending Government),
-illegal wiretapping (damn Clinton has no respect for the Constitution by spying on his oponents)
-tax cuts at the time of war (fucking Democrats setting us up for tax hike in the future)
-letting North Korea develop nukes (that's 9/11 Windows' fault there, not just Clinton's)
-letting $4,000,000,000 in cash literally disappear after taking over Iraq's Food-for-oil accounts (Democrats paying off their terror buddies for 9/11?)
-or taking bribes from Abramoff (50 Democrats took bribes vs 1 Republican)
-election finance reforms (currently the Democrats have 500% more money than the Republicans to spend on elections, somehow)

Please remember that since Republicans do not have the majority in either House or Senate, they are powerless to bring any laws to vote, hold an oversight hearing, subpoena any witnesses, or launch any investigations.

This is why we should vote Republican this November to restore checks and balances to our Government.

Re:

[lottameez]

Well, not that I disagree with you about the GP, but Michael Powell didn't become FCC chairman until Bush appointed him. He was appointed to the FCC by Clinton.

Re:

[GreyPoopon]

...but Michael Powell didn't become FCC chairman until Bush appointed him. He was appointed to the FCC by Clinton.

Yeah, good point. Nevertheless, it appears that both presidents liked the man. There's plenty of bad things to say about the Bush administration, but blaming it/him for things like this just cheapens the argument.

Re:

[bmajik]

Wow! How did the immediate parent get modded Flamebait? I'd think it would either be "Informative" - he basically offers a factual contradiction of the original post. Unless the guy is just plain wrong, in which case a response along the lines of "wrong:" with a citation would be the better approach.

Which, on the topic of the OP - IMO it should have been flamebait, troll, or off-topic - it adds nothing to the discussion at hand, is begging for negative reactions, or is purposefully taking a point of view

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

That's a misrepresentation. First of all, Michael Powell is a Republican. He may have been appointed to a position in the FCC by Clinton in '97, however president Bush appointed him chairman of the FCC immediately after his first inauguration in 2001. As a member of the FCC board during the Clinton administration, Powell would not have had the power to set FCC policy. However, as the Chair under Bush - he certainly did. What we're seeing here is most definitely not Clinton FCC policy.

Re:

[GreyPoopon]

That's a misrepresentation. First of all, Michael Powell is a Republican. He may have been appointed to a position in the FCC by Clinton in '97, however president Bush appointed him chairman of the FCC immediately after his first inauguration in 2001. As a member of the FCC board during the Clinton administration, Powell would not have had the power to set FCC policy. However, as the Chair under Bush - he certainly did. What we're seeing here is most definitely not Clinton FCC policy.

I'll admit that I wasn

Re:

[Scudsucker]

I'll admit that I wasn't detailed enough in my post, but although Michael Powell is a Republican, his policy is more Libertarian in nature.

If he was Libertarian, the FCC wouldn't have gone ape shit over Janet Jackson or fined Howard Stern for reading a transcript of an Oprah show discussing "tossing the salad"...for which she of course was not fined. So he looks more like your typical big business, high horse riding moralist Republican.

Re:What a surprise

[BrynM]

Perhaps you didn't realize that the FCC Chairman at that time (Michael Powell) was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Somebody rate the parent comment as flamebait.

Damn there's a lot of "facts" being thrown around in this thread. From the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on Michael Powell:

President George W. Bush designated him chairman of the commission on 22 January 2001. (then at the end of the article) Powell resigned as Chairman of the FCC on January 21, 2005.

He was followed by Kevin Martin [wikipedia.org]. According to his WP entry:

Martin worked several years for Wiley, Rein & Fielding, "Rated Top Telecommunications Lobbyists" according to an article on their website. The firm represents the Bells as well as Viacom/CBS, Gannett, Belo, Emmis, Gray Television, and Motorola.

. Thus, the current and most recent former Chairmen of the FCC have been both Bush appointees, Republicans and the current one is a former media company lobbyist.

Re:

[lostboy2]

The sentence I found most interesting in Wikipedia was "Kevin Martin has subsequently purged the FCC of many of Powell's staff." His response to Senator Boxer is clearly a "It wasn't me!" defense (whether or not it really was, is another matter).

FWIW, the Chief of the Media Bureau at the time appears to have been Ken Ferree [smrh.com].

Oblig 1984

[da3dAlus]

Minitruth has determined this information to be doubleplusungood. Please deposit all copies of this report to the memory hole immediately.

Re:

[ResidntGeek]

A good Party member shouldn't have to be told when information is doubleplusungood. With a small mental effort all the appropriate attitudes for knowing what is good and ungood can be easily attained.

Re:

[da3dAlus]

Attention user #16116678: as you know, all freethought has been banned, and is considered harmful. Your discussion of "mental effort" and "knowing what is good and ungood" has been reported to the Thought Police, who will be at your home shortly.

Re:

[Zarel]

You duckspeaker; you unbellyfeel Newspeak! The word is "Minitrue".

FOIA

[sdaemon]

Can someone get a FOIA suit going fast enough to beat the shredders to those docs?

The FCC is kinda frightening. It does a lot of good, but it does a lot of harm as well. It's on my top 3 list of government agencies to not piss off.

Re:

[Skye16]

They're on my top 3 list of government agencies to piss on.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Re:

[Aadain2001]

What are the other two, just out of curiosity?

Re:

[sdaemon]

IRS and FAA.

Re:

[syrinje]

The other 2 agencies being??

Re:

[mooingyak]

IRS and FBI ?

Re:

[ResidntGeek]

Nah, the DEA's gotta be one of them.

Re:

[mfrank]

BATF, for the size of their force, is more likely to kill you.

good?

[ajrs]

what has the good FCC done for citizens lately, aside from arbitrary and vague obsenity rulings?

Re:

[Surt]

All of the other posters want to know what the other 2 agencies are, but I want to know what good you think the FCC does?

Re:FOIA

[wfberg]

I want to know what good you think the FCC does?

* managing the spectrum. Not what goes over the airwaves, but who gets to use them for what purpose. (You don't want your local HAM interfering with TV or emergency services frequencies)
* regulating the crap out of telcos, preventing much telco rapage (they're doing this less and less, regretably)
* certifying electronic shit so it doesn't interfere with your other electronic shit

Those are pretty much the good things. The bad things are

* trying to be the thought police (nipplegate!)
* being big and slow and bureaucratic (we want more free-for-all spectrum weeeeh ultrawideband weeeh)
* failing to regulate industries despite huge whopping monopoly abuse (media ownership, ADSL/net neutrality, etc.)

Re:

[sdaemon]

Yep, that's the good stuff. Though of late its the other licensed (more or less) services getting to interfere with the local hams, and the FCC not lifting a finger.

Re:

[mark3748]

The FCC is completely unneeded in today's society, it wasn't even needed in 1934, and has caused nothing but problems since then.

The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has pr

Re:

[Control Group]

I can only assume that the IRS and the BATFE are the other two.

Re:

[tool462]

The FCC is kinda frightening. It does a lot of good, but it does a lot of harm as well. It's on my top 3 list of government agencies to not piss off.

Is that why you want somebody else to file the FOIA suit?

For the people... how quaint.

[CopaceticOpus]

It really aggravates me that decisions keep being made to help a few big companies at the expense of everyone else. It seems obvious that keeping more local control over TV stations is in the viewer's best interest, and yet the decision was made to let these stations get taken over. It seems it's only getting easier and easier for big money to grease the wheels of government.

The fact that this report was ordered to be destroyed only goes to show that someone's best interests other than the public's are being defended here. How far will this sort of thing go? How much are people going to take before they push back, or are we pretty much screwed to slide down this slope to a place where we have no voice and no control? I sure hope not.

So.. where's the link to these documents!

[plasmacutter]

Seriously.. every other redaction or witholding of important perspective/evidence posted to slashdot as a story prompted people to post links of the supposedly stifled documents.

So.. who has em!.. where's the link people ; ).. don't let me down!

Re:

[waferhead]

As much as I disagree with the Good Senator on many issues, she has a copy of the report, and the ...
Sorry... Balls to put it online if they piss her off.

(Bit of a hippocrite---Her position on handgun control for instance. Vocal anti gun shill... but _She_ packs a concealed weapon...)

QUICK!

[eno2001]

FCC Head: "Can you get me a line to Bill Clinton"?
FCC Operator: "Bill Clinton? Why do you want to talk to that no good lying sonovabitch with a cunt for a wife and who likes to get blown by fat ugly chicks who look nothing like Ann Coulter"?
FCC Head: "Because I hear he knows of good paper shredding services. I've got some hot docs here that need to be completely and totally destroyed before they make it out to the public".
FCC Operator: "Ahhh... all is clear to me now boss. Sure thing sweetie".
FCC Head: "

Report and response are online

[lostboy2]

Fascinating.

The draft report [fcc.gov] and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's response to Senator Boxer [fcc.gov] are linked on the
FCC's website [fcc.gov].

What a shame that now...

[the_rajah]

this document is going to be lost **forever**...

On thousands of slashdotter's hard drives around the world.

Re:Report and response are online

[rabel]

Couldn't they print the document directly to .PDF? If not, could they at least clean their scanner and toner drum and maybe even align the pages on the scanner so they come out somewhat straight?

Is it government policy to author a document using a computer, print it out, then scan it, then convert the scanned image to PDF? I can marginally justify something obstuse like this if we need to capture the signature, but these documents are not signed. Hey, I think I'm the first person to point out a wasteful government policy! Go me!

Re:

[HTH NE1]

Is it government policy to author a document using a computer, print it out, then scan it, then convert the scanned image to PDF?

It should be for redacted documents (see first page). And probably for any text they want to bury by making it unsearchable. Instead some agencies think they can electronically redact by drawing black rectangles atop non-graphical text, as repeatedly reported on slashdot.

Really mature response by these guys

[dkleinsc]

This is simply the slightly more sophisticated version of covering one's ears saying "La la la la I'm not listening I'm not listening". And to think that if they had just ignored the report, it probably would have sat in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" without anyone taking any notice.

So what?

[Arthur B.]

Anyway the only thing this report could have done is legitimate the use of force by the government against TV stations. Even if the regulation could have some positive impact, this would lead to a regulation trap the government could use to control the media even more. As much as I disaprove of the destroying of the report, it is clearly irresponsible, but I do appreciate that coercive laws won't be passed.
If people WANT to watch local news there WILL be local news, tehre is no need for a law.

Re:

[bechthros]

Oh clearly. Just like people WANT cheap gas, so gas keeps getting cheaper.

Wait, what?

Re:

[hunterx11]

If people WANT to watch local news there WILL be local news, tehre is no need for a law.

Would you care to substantiate this rather extraordinary claim?

they're so cute when they get worked up

[mcmonkey]

Boxer's office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.

Isn't she precious. Gonna push for an investigation. How cute.

Listen, hon, the horse left that barn behind a long time ago. Congress has made itself pretty much irrelevant. President breaks the law? They just pass a new law making whatever it was legal. They threaten to actually do their jobs and enforce some oversight? President claims he can do whatever he wants anyway. (When there was some talk about the USA PATRIOT act not getting renewed, Bush just came right out and said he could do whatever he wanted anyway as C and C. Rather than challenge that assertion, they just passed the law.)

And they gave away the store long ago with these agencies. Agencies like the FCC enact and enforce regulations without all that pesky oversight and due process they have to deal with down in congress. Better yet, agency heads don't have to worry about elections. Regulations are so much easier than laws.

What are they gonna do about it now? What did they do when all those energy executives lied to them? What did they do when all those baseball players lied to them? Mrs. Boxer and her colleagues are gonna do whatever they think they need to do to get reelected. Nothing more. They're certainly not going to do anything to anyone at the FCC.

Re:they're so cute when they get worked up

[Bassman59]

Listen, hon, the horse left that barn behind a long time ago. Congress has made itself pretty much irrelevant.

Recall that the Republican-controlled Senate and House made itself irrelevant under a Republican president--so blame the Republicans. Contrast that to how the Republican Senate and House acted during the Clinton adminstration.

Jamming With the FCC

[Doc Ruby]

The FCC's job is entirely based on the need for a central registry for radio broadcasters, so sufficiently powerful signals don't interfere with each other. Along the way that leverage in denying access to the "public airwaves" turned into government control of broadcasters. Along that way the requirements to "serve the public good" were dropped. These days in favor of "protecting the propaganda of the government".

New phased array tech lets multiple transmitters share a frequency, but are distinguished by their spatial separation. So the FCC's central mission is coming to an end. A lot of their worst moves to sell off any public benefit and protection, and to merely regulate content on "obscenity" (or other culture war buzzwords) is mere desperate grabs for power.

I hope that phased array stations arrive well before the FCC can help the corporate broadcast cartel lock out entry to the media sphere. If we can make it past that dropping sword, we might be fairly home free.

Who controls the present controls the past.

[HTH NE1]

"It exists!" [Winston Smith] cried.

"No," said O'Brien.

He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.

"Ashes," he said. "Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed."

"But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it."

"I do not remember it," said O'Brien.

Duh, duh, duh....

[Hap76]

If you want something to go away, you don't jump up and down saying, "Burn this immediately! IMMEDIATELY!", because then everyone knows that this is important and one of your employees/minions/servants might save it anyway, either because you're evil and they want to screw you or because they think that you're shortsighted enough to want it gone now and back later and so they want to save you from yourself. Duh.

Of course, this is an argument for DRM - if this report had been DRMd (competently), there would probably be very few people with both the knowledge of the report and with the ability to circumvent the DRM so that if someone had wanted it gone, it likely would have been.

That's a good thing, right? [crickets chirping]

In proper Newspeak:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Minitrue report "Local Media Ownership" doubleplusungood, rectify fullwise 2006.09.14: memoryhole.

RS

Who owns that report

[Nom du Keyboard]

That report was paid for with taxpayer money, which means they have no right to destroy it. Where is the ACLU the one time I might actually want them?

FCC

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Looks like the First Church of Censorship strikes again...

Why does this administration hate research?

[Serveert]

From global warming and EPA report cutting.. To fmr Treasury Paul O'Neil, who after showing that income taxes would need to double in order to support the aging baby boomers, was rewarded by the report being axed before he was fire err before he resigned.

This has got to be the most hand over the eyes administration in history. History books will not be kind. Especially when taxes must be raised in the future to cover the huge US debt or when there is only one entity controling all media. At some people it will be obvious what a terrible administration this is, right now it's not so clear.

That's silly... (joke)

[Antony-Kyre]

That's silly, we all know that few owners would help local t.v. coverage. Just like having fewer political parties helps the people. Imagine if we had one person own all the news networks. That would be like having one political party, and we all know how easy it is to vote when we have no choices. We just listen to what they say and blindly believe everything they say.

Here's the report

[metallel]

http://www.hearusnow.org/fileadmin/sitecontent/mis sing_localism_report.pdf [hearusnow.org]

Spread it around :-)

Federal Corrupt Commision

[toriver]

Big industry can buy politicans who decide, or those that enforce - or both!

Welcome to the United States of Clear Channel and News Corp.

Re:The FCC was right to do so

[Zardus]

See... I have mod points, but for the life of me I can't find "-1, Retarded" in the available mods....

Re:

[Kesch]

This is not the "free market" vs "regulation" problem you are framing it as. Although I generally lean towards libertarian, I do not agree with your argument in this case. The study in question showed that PRIVATE ownership of stations by local networks provided a better level of news coverage as opposed to PRIVATE ownership of stations by huge media corporations. The only regulation in question here is an attempt to loosen anti-monopoly measures dictating how many stations a media corp can own. The study i

Re:

[adavies42]

It's not the government's place to "optimize" the economy. If you don't get that, please stop pretending to even "lean" toward libertarian.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

I think the problem is that your definition of "libertarian" is "social Darwinist nutjob," while the rest of us define it as "normal person who just wants to be left the fuck alone."

Re:

[kilfarsnar]

"...any wise observer of history will be aware that market forces will recognize this value and favor production of these types of information accordingly."

If you were not serious, please disregard the rest of this response. But that's just hilarious! Why don't you compare the ratings of Nova and American Idol and see if your theory holds up? Wise observers of history would more likely note that unregulated free markets tend towards monopoly and exploitation.

You note that news, science, and educationa

Re:The FCC was right to do so

[Floody]

An optimally efficient economy maximizes wealth creation and benefits all citizens to a much greater extent than having a group of bureaucrats decide which types of data are more important than others, and regulating commerce along those lines. The latter arrangement can only lead the type of social planning that ruined so many Eastern European economies.

See, this is where libertarianism drifts away from rationality. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as much laissez faire as possible, especially when it comes to Big Brother staying out of people's private lives (excepting depriving someone else of their freedoms, including coercion and fraud). But this libertarian nonsense about the perfection of a Free Market economy is just silly.

Libertarians are quick to point out that monopolies are almost always government mandated. Well, duh. Of course they are. It's no accident either.

When corporations reach a considerable size, it only makes sense that the best way to ensure continued growth and desired stock performance is to manipulate some (or all) of public policy. Sure, great product ought to be enough, but what if something goes wrong? What if a competitor suddenly pulls the rug out from underneath you? Why not hedge your bets? Sound business planning really; a little insurance to cover those "unforseens."

To those at the very top of the market ladder (corporations, not people), fascism is a utopia, as long as its fascism they are in control of (or at least benefit from). It's perfect; reduces corporate risk to practically nothing. Fortunately, there are other pressures which, so far, in the US, have kept it relatively under control. But to many it seems like its slipping every day.

It's a new century. We don't need a nanny state to keep an eye on things.

See, that's just the thing. You're afraid of Big Brother being a little too big and a little too controlling. What you have to understand is the megacorps want to be the nanny state, not so they can have some sort of Comic Book Evil totalitarian control over you, but to make sure you only buy products from them or their partners.

Re:The FCC was right to do so

[mrbooze]

To be sure, such categores of information as "news", "science", and "educational programming" are of immense, value, but any wise observer of history will be aware that market forces will recognize this value and favor production of these types of information accordingly.

Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet?

Re:

[jagger]

Always happy to oblige. Did you get your complimentary tinfoil hat when you came in?

Re:

[jagger]

that was my bad. I followed the story back from 2 blogs to msnbc but then neglected to head back to the AP layer.

Re:

[geekoid]

One issue is speech, another is abuse .

can you see the difference?

Re:

[zCyl]

I love how the average /.er is against the FCC when they're censoring Howard Stern or Janet Jackson, but in favor of their cracking down on "big business".

I think most Slashdotters believe in freedom and diversity of information. When the government censors culture, this restricts the freedom and diversity of information. When a small handful of big businesses own all the major media outlets, this also restricts the freedom and diversity of information.

Re:

[Analogy Man]

Surely a populace informed by a free press with a diversity of editorial leadership will provide aid and comfort to the enemy!