Posted on 02/03/2003 11:51:40 AM PST by GeneD
Now here's a dandy example of the kind of thing that never makes it to the front page or the top of the news broadcast, but that affects absolutely everyone. The Federal Communications Commission, led by Michael ("my religion is the market") Powell, is fixing to remove the last remaining barriers against concentration of media.
This means one company can own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area. Presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets. Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism say these are the most sweeping changes in the rules that govern ownership of American media since the 1940s. The ownership rules were put in place after we had seen how totalitarian governments use domination of the media to goad their countries into war.
We already know what happens when the free market zealots remove restrictions on ownership. In 1996, the FCC eliminated its rules on radio ownership. Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations around the country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, and there are 30 percent fewer station owners than there were before 1996. The result is less local news and local programming, since the formats are programmed at headquarters. Clear Channel owns as many as six or seven stations in a market, broadcasting generic country, generic pop, generic oldies, etc.
The fearless investigative television journalism we have all come to expect (an hourlong special on Michael Jackson's face in the works) will not be improved by this move. The FCC is doing this in an almost covert way. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps reports that only under pressure did the commission agree to hold one lone public hearing on it, in Richmond, Va.
A coalition of consumer and media advocacy groups presented a 140-page filing that shows joint ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets fails to meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945, that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people."
In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. That same year, Congress put the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it with this memorable rationalization, "The Fairness Doctrine is inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." The Fairness Doctrine had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision that viewed the airwaves as a "public trust" and said fairness required the public trust to accurately reflect opposing views. In a 1986 decision, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to television text. The two prevailing judges were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.
Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media."
On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. . . . Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."
To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market."
Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.
Very telling phrase...............free market proponents are called zealots.
We have a word for those who are opposed to free market principles and private ownership of property.
We call them 'communists', Molly.
Nah.........she's completely left
In a nutshell, your post #45 is right on target.
If its covert, how did this info end up in a nationally syndicated column ?
Actually the erra of two newspaper towns is gone excpet for NY and other major outlets. For most of us all that is available for a newspapers is a liberal rag. Do you think Molly or MG would be willing to trade a liberal newspaper's control over an area for an AM radio station ? I doubt it.
How old are you?
Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact?
An assertion of agreement and the identification of truth?
The role of ommited facts on the direction and argument can be taken?
Anything?
The standard pap about press freedom, etc.
One interesting note, the head of their New York Office is Tala Dowlatshahi, who works for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
Do you want the UN informing you on press freedom?
Amazing that it took me five minutes to turn this up on Google, but Molly Ivins couldn't be bothered.
No, Bunky, but one side does seem to have a monoply on lying. Ivins is simply carrying water again for whining Democrat like Daschle and Hillary! who are disturbed by the fact that their party's own monoply has finally given way to diversity of opinion.
The scumbags controlled the House for 40 years before one lone voice in the wilderness began to give people hope and truth. Ivins is just sweating like a pig because her party's lies are so quickly and roundly exposed in the modern media. No longer are people captive dinnertime audiences to the only news they could find - - Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather. Do you remember, "More people get their news from ABC News than from any other news source"? (Shudder.)
Now, in 2003, there are options. This drives her and her ilk nuts.
The ranking by this organization has NOTHING to do with any media domination or ownership concentration.
From the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) website:
Costa Rica better placed than the United States
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Although it's true that journalists in the U.S. are sometimes jailed for refusing to reveal sources, many states in the U.S. have shield laws allowing journalists to maintain confidentiality of their sources, under certain circumstances. Those states that don't have express shield laws will often allow journalists to keep sources confidential.
RWB faults the U.S. for arresting journalists for crossing police lines? They should also deduct points from the U.S. because U.S. police also give reporters speeding and parking tickets when the reporters are chasing a stories.
RWB is a France-based organization that may do some valuable work for reporters covering various despots, but their evaluation of the U.S. has no credibility.
RWB ranks France ahead of the U.S. in press freedom. France, where police seized books for national security violations because the text claimed that the late French leader Mitterand lied about his health, has much less press freedom than the U.S.
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.