Media ownership

[charboneau]

Once again the FCC is trying to push through legislation that will allow the further consolidation of media ownership. If this is allowed to happen, diversity in what we see, read and hear in the media will be affected. Local ownership and local voices will be affected.

When FCC chairman Michael Powell pushed through these changes in the spring, 2 million people wrote the FCC opposing the change. Congress heard the message of the people loud and clear and voted 400 to 21 to not back the changes. 400 to 21 is an obvious indication that this issue is important to people across the political spectrum.

The final Senate vote on whether to approve these changes is this week, and now is a great time to let them know that you oppose putting the distribution of news in the hands of a very few. There are probably a number of petitions in opposition to the changes, here's a link to one of them:

http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/

[Desertrat]

My druthers would be no ownership of both TV and Print. I'd be happier if ownership were wider-spread; don't like "chains" such as the Cox newspaper group and suchlike.

You couple the notion of mega-groups with the First Amendment insults of the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform Act" and you have the groundwork for a horrible amount of control of the type of information the public receives. Lordy, "News Lite" is bad enough as it is.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

I'm more of a 'Why should the FCC be involved at all?'

Media, print, TV, radio, etc should be free from government intervention. Dissolve the FCC, and fire Michael Powell and all the other FCC employees. :D

I find it ironic that the ones that are hiding behind the 1st Amendment are also the ones that are violating it by involving government more.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm more of a 'Why should the FCC be involved at all?'

Media, print, TV, radio, etc should be free from government intervention. Dissolve the FCC, and fire Michael Powell and all the other FCC employees. :D

I find it ironic that the ones that are hiding behind the 1st Amendment are also the ones that are violating it by involving government more.

Heck, let's just dissolve the government and have done with it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Media, print, TV, radio, etc should be free from government intervention.

and if a monopoly formed, that's okay?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Heck, let's just dissolve the government and have done with it.

You said it, not me. I'm not an anarchist. I think that there are valid reasons for governments to exist. Regulating the media is definitely not one of them, as spelled out in the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

reg·u·la·tion n.
The act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.

So, is Congress, via the FCC controlling the freedom of speech or of the press, in violation of the 1st Amendment?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
and if a monopoly formed, that's okay?

Not all monopolies are bad. There are natural monopolies. Besides, 1st Amendment doesn't have 'but this amendment can be nullified to avoid a monopoly.' at the end of it. :p

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Not all monopolies are bad. There are natural monopolies. Besides, 1st Amendment doesn't have 'but this amendment can be nullified to avoid a monopoly.' at the end of it. :p

The first amendment also doesn't say "except for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" That's why we have the court system to help interpret the meaning of our constitution. Would you go so far as to say that every single bit of speech is protected just because the constitution doesn't expressly forbid it? Would that include slander and libel?

[Desertrat]

Seems to me there is a difference between not-regulating what anybody says about political issues, and regulating ownership of businesses.

The Atlanta Constitution is free to sell its papers anywhere in the U.S. The view is that its owners shouldn't also own every other paper in the country, plus all the TV stations in Atlanta or Dallas or wherever.

The overall goal, seems to me, is diversity of editorial opinion. I doubt anybody would like to see the majority of papers or TV commentary reflect the views of only Pat Buchanan--or Tom Teepen, for that matter.

If nothing else, B-O-ring. :)

'Rat

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, is Congress, via the FCC controlling the freedom of speech or of the press, in violation of the 1st Amendment?

Sometimes you need regulation to have "freedom". It sounds counter-intuitive but it's true. Capitalisim tends towads the concentration of wealth and power. It's true - I do not want to go into it, the examples are everywhere.

Anyway why do you care if Clear channel and time warner control everything you watch and listen to? Give someone else a break, why don't cha?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic The first amendment also doesn't say "except for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" That's why we have the court system to help interpret the meaning of our constitution. Would you go so far as to say that every single bit of speech is protected just because the constitution doesn't expressly forbid it? Would that include slander and libel?

Actually, you can yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. You are responsible for the injuries sustained by parties though if it were false, which is perfectly fine by me.

Slander/Libel might be wrong, but Congress can't make any laws saying you can talk/write because you might commit slander/libel You could sue if you are slandered against, which is only the case if it were false.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, is Congress, via the FCC controlling the freedom of speech or of the press, in violation of the 1st Amendment?

By allowing monopolies, it can also be argued, congress is abridging the freedom of the press by locking out the independent voices. If 50 % of all the press is controlled by one man, is that freedom? I don't think so.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Slander/Libel might be wrong...

Gee, you think?

[Mason]

Media ownership rules are not an issue of the First Amendment. Defeat of the FCC rule changes will in no way affect any current media organization's ability to deliver the news. Rather, these rule changes would only affect the huge corporations, and the government has every right to regulate the business industry.

[Waluigi]

White House Threatens Senate with Veto (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60432-2003Sep11?language=printer)

Interesting.....

--Waluigi

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Waluigi
White House Threatens Senate with Veto (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60432-2003Sep11?language=printer)


ugh. what utter crap. no one who supports the FCC rule changes can explain how it benefits the end consumer.

'cuz it doesn't

[Desertrat]

Amen, zim, amen...

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
By allowing monopolies, it can also be argued, congress is abridging the freedom of the press by locking out the independent voices. If 50 % of all the press is controlled by one man, is that freedom? I don't think so.

That must be one rich guy, to be able to afford their own mouthpiece, even if 99% of the consumers do not agree with the slanted viewpoints. Thats sarcasm, btw.

If a large percentage of the audience do not like the message, they will go elsewhere for their news/entertainment. And that 50% of the press will go down along with it.

[pseudobrit]

I heard five minutes of Rush today (wrong place at the wrong time) as he was spouting off about this.

I'm not sure which side he was on, but he blamed it all on "the liberals."