Posted on 09/11/2002 11:40:58 AM PDT by weegee
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators will take a new look at rules limiting ownership of newspapers and television and radio stations, with an eye toward loosening restrictions.
The Federal Communications Commission ( news - web sites) is scheduled to begin a rule-making process Thursday that is widely expected to produce new regulations that will make it easier for large media companies to merge.
"The clear direction of this is deregulation," said Blair Levin, a former FCC ( news - web sites) official and now an analyst with Legg Mason. Levin said the agency will have to address whether eased regulations may limit media diversity.
"What would people say if their cable companies, one newspaper in their town, half of the radio stations and 30 percent of the TV stations were all owned by the same company?" he said. "Where do the new lines get drawn?"
The FCC said in June that it would use this week's meeting to begin official reviews of two rules — one concerning the number of television and radio stations a company can own in one market, and another preventing any of the four major television networks from merging with each other.
The agency will also examine two rules that were rejected by an appeals court this year and sent back to the government. Those rules involved restrictions on the national reach of companies that own multiple television stations and on companies that want to own two television stations in the same market.
The FCC is already looking at a restriction that prohibits one company from owning a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market, as well as a rule that limits radio station ownership.
The agency wants to combine its work on the various rules to make the regulations more consistent and able to survive legal challenges. The FCC has said its combined study and any potential changes to the rules are expected to be completed by spring 2003.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has expressed skepticism about broad ownership limits and concerns that many of the agency's rules are based on hunches rather than facts. Powell's comments have led to speculation the rules will be relaxed or repealed, leading to a wave of media mergers.
Consumer groups have warned that consolidation would lead to a handful of companies controlling all the information people receive as well as how they receive it.
Some Senate Democrats, including Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, have opposed easing restrictions on media ownership. They argue that there already has been too much concentration in the market for TV, radio and other services.
A 1996 telecommunications law required the FCC to periodically review ownership rules in light of greater competition and other changes in the industry.
The government should stay out of it either way.
"The Federal Communications Commission ( news - web sites) is scheduled to begin a rule-making process Thursday that is widely expected to produce new regulations that will make it easier for large media companies to merge."
~snip~
"'The clear direction of this is deregulation,' said Blair Levin, a former FCC ( news - web sites) official and now an analyst with Legg Mason."
~I've a bad feeling about this; real bad.
"Levin said the agency will have to address whether eased regulations may limit media diversity."
Huh?
BEWARE anyone prefacing what's already a foregone conclusion with the *rope-a-dope* statement, "whether [Fill In The Blank] may limit [Fill In The Blank] diversity."
I mean, how can there [possibly] be any doubt whatsoever things will get even worse than they already are?
How?
Imagine the state of the media industry getting any lower than their present "PP" rating ("Piss-Poor")??!!
The Liberal-Socialist Lamestream have earned that mantle, so richly deserve their horrible reputation, & probably strangest, most perverted of all??
The Liberal-Socialist Lamestreamites & presstitutes actually seem to enjoy their lowly *status* at the bottom of the barrel!!
Shamelessly right alongside used car salesmen & bloodsucker sheisters.
"'What would people say if their cable companies, one newspaper in their town, half of the radio stations and 30 percent of the TV stations were all owned by the same company?' he said. 'Where do the new lines get drawn?'"
Is this *rich*, or what?
What're we screaming about right now, for crying out loud!!
Stupid-stupid-stupid!
This POTUS had better intervene & put the kabosh to this hairbrained Liberal-Socialist *inspired* scheme -- *like* NOW!
Moreover, if need be a formal constitutional amendment needs to be drafted that'd permenently forbid such unholy alliances from ever seeing the light of day.
That's the only to stop this idea from ever being brought up again; regardless, of what Dubya does now to prevent it, now.
It's no secret once these Liberal-Socialists roll-out an *idea* one can bet their boots they've reason to believe [it] has enough steam to become reality; and/or, the idea can be spun well (& long) enough to become a permanent *Pop* "Demand of the People"!
The braintrust Liberal-Socialists are trying an End- Around on our constitution, folks.
Won't matter WHAT that sacred document says, now; not once these America-hating Lefties behavior(s) are totally covered & protected by the FIRST one.
Sheer insanity!
...turn out the lights if they succeed getting away with this.
Not all that different than what we've got today...however, as the Internet continues to expand, the Networks will continue to lose influence in determining what news they will spoon-feed us.
FReegards...MUD
None there will be no broadcast opportunities, since there is no right to broadcast. Only government approved companies can broadcast. Try sending a signal out without the approval of the FCC and see what happens to you.
You'd better damned well hope that's the case as what you're advocating is at best, a best-case scenario.
I'm not so sure the "Free Market" was strong enough to supercede the powerful in an older, slower America; nevermind, the slicksters who're running the show, these days.
(Mr. Tucker being just one example of a free market taking a hit at the hands of magnates; and, there're many other such examples, too.)
A 1st Amend in the hands of one power is frightening.
A bigger threat than you're giving it credit for & certainly a threat to be dealt with seriously.
...this is no time for idealistic nievete'; that's for damned sure.
Do you trust the government to ensure "diversity of opinion" more than you trust the market place?
Do you have any examples where government regulation led to a more open and vibrant exchange of ideas?
I don't care what or who in the hell it takes to stop this.
You'd better rethink this, & carefully, too.
Because once it's a done deal?
It'll WILL TAKE a constitutional amendment to rip the power away from this pack of dogs; &, we both know damned well that'd never happen.
I feel it'd be best to prevent it from the very start.
Choosing the best of two evils, if that'd make you happy??
...& with all that's at risk, it works for me.
Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
- A.J. Liebling
Can you explain to me how the easing of FCC ownership regulations will take a Constitutional Amendment to rescind?
Seriously, are you out of your mind?
These regulations that Powell wants to change are a good example.
How can allowing media companies to own a greater percentage of the media outlets in a city increase the open and vibrant exchange of ideas?
Thee is already a monopoly by liberals in the media. So what's the fuss about when we have the internet and talk radio.
How can allowing media companies to own a greater percentage of the media outlets in a city increase the open and vibrant exchange of ideas?
Media companies are in the business of making money. If there is a dollar to be made by presenting conservative viewpoints, the media company will present the conservative viewpoint. (Though, admittedly, the glacier is often slow-moving.)
The government is in the business of controlling the populace. Government regulation of the airwaves has never been, historically, a good method for spreading the news about corrupt and abusive government.
I’ll take my chances with the market.
BTW, these types of regulations are also the reason we have shell “minority” owned media companies, because the government has reasoned that diversity of opinion is predicated on diversity of skin color. They have not been real effective at generating an open exchange of ideas.
Yea.
A stark, raving lunatic; in fact, you're the only one whose sane.
...drop it.
Easily modified to read, The freedom of the press/TV/Radio is guarenteed to those who own one."
Wouldn't be distorting the message of the statement one bit, either.
I'd ask you: how long do [you] suppose it'd take one of these consolidated media giants -- once they learn they're losing "market share" to a website -- to move on taking over said popular Internet site(s)?
Can be even gloomier if the takeover's for the purpose -- express OR implied -- of further consolidating & saturating their ideological POV?
~& they will just as sure as God made little green apples, too.
Won't be a damned thing anyone can do about it, either; lest, they wind-up being squashed like a *bug*?
(Just ask Mr. James Robinson about that finer point, neighbor; he may even answer an honest question about his experience(s) dealing with the media bastards *if* ya catch the man on one of his better days? {g})
Good Lord!
EVEN a "frivolous" lawsuit brough by one of these huge entities against a young, budding entrepreneur can smash 'em to pieces; &, without so much as a wimper ever being heard, too.
This idea is NOT in the best interest(s) of you or I; nor, our nation.
-PERIOD-
There're *some* things which must remain totally "free" and if it takes a "government" to insure that state?
...so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.