FCC Moves to End TV-Newspaper Ownership Ban
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
One of Conan's recurring bits is anchors reading prepackaged scripts.[0]. They're all packages by CNN for local affiliates,[1] one of several similar services (including Fox).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA
[1] http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/12/heres-how-conan-obrie...
Also, I think it is naive to claim that the NYT manages to achieve some holy grail of independence from its ownership. Remember that this is the organization that recently eliminated their fairly short-lived position of Public Editor.
Not great that every decision coming out of the FCC regulatory body as of late is beneficial to a small group of companies.
The worst case is more likely, unfortunately. Echo chambers will get louder and influence their believers even more. Information will be replaced with entertainment and propaganda. In other words, more of the worst of what we have now.
I too miss all the unique local radio shows.
On the other hand, it was easy to buy many of them off. See these two examples:
1. LBJ and Lady Bird: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/20...
2. Payola: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
This is a calculated and malicious move.
The base voters who show up are people who value specific issues like abortion, taxes, guns, etc and a red line that cannot be crossed.
Compare that message to the gotv efforts for democratic candidates. They’ll target ethnic voters, women, unions, lgbt, etc with messages specific to them. Depending on where they are, Democrats will stay silent on abortion or guns.
It’s a big reason why voter suppression is such a priority for the GOP. When there aren’t enough old white people, it’s expensive and difficult to convince gays or African Americans to flip.
I live in a very democratic state, and my little city probably has 30 polling places open from 6am to 9pm on Election Day with hardly any wait time.
Some tropes:
* "Real" rural Americans vs city dwellers
* Oppressed Christians vs atheists and Muslims (despite both being a tiny minority nationally vs the majority Christians)
* blacks and Hispanics vs their majority white base
* College educated vs uneducated (somehow ignoring the party elite and backers frequently have elite educations)
* Gun owners vs everyone else
I cynically believe many people, including the GOP national leadership, realize these are much more manufactured than oppression faced by actual opressed minority groups. But stirring up culture wars provides a great smoke screen for their agenda while fracturing socially or racially what would otherwise be natural opposition to their policies among class lines.
See: GOP rallying the rural poor and elderly against ACA, despite the two groups being some of the biggest groups on Medicare/caid
Not very conducive to discussion, and quite ironic in a thread about divisive echo chambers.
They have been buying up local stations for years. They then use that influence to push conservative ideas.
Also, consolidation is a cross-cutting economic problem the DOJ’s antitrust division should be handling. It’s outside the FCC’s expertise.
Radio and television are extremely relevant to most Americans. It's only those of us in our Bay Area-Chicago-New York bubbles that think they aren't. Decreasing market share does not mean irrelevance.
Radio alone is extremely influential for political opinions. Many politicians owe their careers to Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz.
Curated news stories that omit one perspective will certainly influence their audiences: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-20/the-sincl...
In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's jurisdition. The FCC's legitimate purpose is to prevent interference among radio and TV stations. It's not to regulate content (which isn't a legitimate area of regulation at all). And it's not to enforce antitrust laws (which are enforced by a different government agency, with specific expertise in antitrust).
The fact that radio is influential in politics among a certain segment of the population is even more reason for the FCC to steer clear, not a reason for the FCC to intervene.
If the NTSB licensed trucks, and there was only enough road space to license 100 trucks per city, I'd be perfectly fine if they decided that 50/100 trucks had to be locally owned.
Usable radio frequencies are a limited resource, we have a vested interest in allocating those resources efficiently and fairly. The argument is what constitutes efficiently and fairly.
Is it fair to award licenses to the highest bidder? How about the tallest station owner?
Regardless of how they allocate licenses, they are still making a choice that determines who gets access and what viewpoints are represented.
I see no intrinsic reason that "highest bidder" is any more fair than "lives within 100 miles of the radio station."
The fact that getting rid of hose regulations might help any particular group is besides the point. To the extent that those regulations were based on an attempt to influence viewpoints, they were not legitimate to begin with.
Conservative talk radio in particular plays a huge part in conservative political culture.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
The latter could easily be more of a cause of the former than vice versa.
But... this isn't about that. We're eventually going to reach a media (internet, tv, news, etc) singularity. How is that good for _anyone_ except investors?
In all, a great way to avoid having to give any real arguments as to why this is a good idea.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
When you get cases like this: http://stopthecap.com/2017/10/23/mich-lawmaker-seeks-ban-com...
you can observe it very clearly. Pai is even worse, because he isn't an elected official.
It sounds like you're saying, "I don't like what he does, so he must be getting bribes."
I think he is doing great damage, and that Congress needs to step in and codify into law what he is rolling back. That said, bizarre claims only serve to weaken the position that we share: that the FCC is serving industry at the expense of the public good and consumers.
Current Congress won't step in, because of exactly same corruption going on. Current majority supports this insanity.
It’s not obvious. Why would I check? You have to support your position. Right now you continue to weaken opposition to Pai’s actions by appearing that you aren’t being logical.
Anyway, about Pai's ties to monopolistic ISPs, there was a lot published here: https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=Pai
I'm not doing free research, you're going to have to mention one example of corruption.
While somewhat true, it seems like a strawman argument seen through rose colored glasses and this is not what will happen. Consolidation will continue and the only local news you'll probably get is what X corporation wants to supply you with. And you can not use the argument of 'free-market, vote with your wallet / consumption, switch to their competitor' because chances are there isn't one.
He's relatively uneducated, having only a high school diploma (and he barely got that) but he's also quite successful, running a business doing specialized repairs to heavy construction equipment with a revenue over a million dollars/year.
And he's a die-hard republican who thinks Trump is just what this country needs.