Federal Communication Commission chairman Michael Powell's new media rules have again been trampled, this time by the US Senate which voted 55-40 to overturn them.

"On June 2, the FCC passed new rules that allow a newspaper to buy a television station in the same city or vice versa, combinations known as 'cross-ownership'," the Washington Post summed it up today.

"Also, the new rules let a broadcast network, such as ABC and Fox, own a group of stations that reach up to 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent, the current 'national cap.' They allow one media company to own more than one station in many cities. Finally, the new rules tighten radio ownership rules, essentially capping national radio consolidation."

Defying a White House veto threat, "The Senate approved a resolution Tuesday to repeal media ownership rules that critics say could lead to a wave of mergers and stifle diversity and local viewpoints in news and entertainment," says an Associated Press report, going on:

"We have to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy," said Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) was quoted as saying in the report.

"The new FCC rules were championed by FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, who argued that consolidation was less a threat now than when the rules were enacted because consumers have many more choices for their news and entertainment," says the Post story.

It still faces a uphill battle in the House. Concentrate the efforts there by contacting your congressperson..

First post and yea!

Damm Thumbtack!

One of My Senators, Patty Murray (D-Wash), wrote me back on an FCC ruling petition that was circulating the web. I really like her. I'll vote for her next election too if I can. I voted for her last election because I liked what she had to say. I guess she is co-sponsering S. 1046, the Preservation
of Localism Program Diversity, and Competition in Television
Broadcast Service Act of 2003. I haven't read the bill, but I'll probably look it over when I have time. I felt bad when she wrote me back, I know the email she got from me was a lot less personal then the one I recieved from her. Eventhough I know it wasn't actually her that wrote me, but it felt like she actually took the time to draft a response email herself rather than have someone else do it. Anyway, I'm glad to see the powers starting to shift already this early in the elections.

~goingnova

Presidential veto? Haha, we all know how far this idiot president will go for his corporate masters (Remembers the Iraq war)

Murray is an left-wing nutjob. Still good to see that the FCC rules are being revoked, though.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Dec_2002/sen_murray.htm

So far they have done a marvous job of preventing any leak of unwelcome news against the sue everyone approach. If it is not in favor of the tactic, then it is just a mention of so many were sued.

But as has been seen lately, many individuals in public eye are starting to say it is wrong. That the methods that are being used are wrong. That the major labels and select governmental officals are closely tied and have not the publics interest at heart. (DUH!)

The groundswell has started. The word is getting out as more and more think for themselves that this method of attack is wrong. Then they find others with like opinions. Soon, control of 35% of the listening audience will not be enough. Hold on, it is coming...

This is good news. The FCC media rules needed to be overturned.

Powell and the FCC have done really good work.

I see this as anohter attempt of the democratic party to make the Bush administration look bad and stop him from getting any real work done.

In case you haven't realized this is the information age, and it is no longer valid to place restrictions on private media companies, and it does hamper their ability to compete and forces them to buy their content from wire services.

Just because the recording industry is corrupt doesn't mean you should be paranoid of large companies.

Wouldn't it be better if private companies could compete with national news services? wouldn't that diversify opinions?

anyway..

Death to the RIAA!

Goes to show, folks.. it is ALL political!! headup and thanks to goingnova for the information.. you got the right idea, in my book! Communication with the elected officials is key.. I think that is what changed the "minds" of the Senators.. the hue and cry of the people. It was reported earlier that they received voluminous mail against this FCC ruling. Outof.. "left wing nutjob?" Sounds like my kind of Senator. At least there was a response.

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

I have to believe that the petitions we all signed had some effect here. This is a good example of making it work. Keep up the fight folks we're winning.

Jazzmary, good for you.

"Defying a White House veto threat..."

Bush has threatened to veto the repeal? Well, I guess that takes care of any uncertainty I had about the 2004 election. This pisses me off A LOT more than his support for the RIAA, because most people are too ignorant of the facts concerning the music issue to know any better.

Bush knows damn good and well what the consequences of allowing one media outlet to essentially control an entire city (and from there it will get worse). And the consequences are far worse than those resulting from the DMCA.

Bush's actions are almost Hussein-like. Since we can't "liberate" Americans and are unable to overthrow the Bush "regime", then I guess I'll drag my ass to the polls, despite how futile an effort it may be.

I called the current administration a "regime." That means they are without a doubt evil and bad and that foxnews must immediately send me a theme song and spiffy graphic to use with my propaganda (except mine isn't).

I really was holding out and supporting Bush. A veto threat. What a jerk.

OdiOdin All I can say is CRY ME A RIVER. You are so full of crap and falling into the corperate republican bullcrap. pity though.

I'm glad they were repealed. I'm actually surprised to see anyone saying the decision was a bad one. Do you really want more fox?

I am extremely open minded. You could always try to persuade me otherwise. However "CRY ME A RIVER" isn't going to accomplish that.

I notice a couple of you bash foxnews, and don't show much toleration for other opinions anyway.

But don't just sit in front of your computer and read a Powell/FCC/Bush conspiracy theory without reading more about why the FCC thought it was a good idea and exactly what the rule changes where before you start attacking other people's opinions.

It really discourages me when I see some of you over-opinionated folks use such really poor judgement when you bash whatever doesn't agree with your philosophies, and can't you see beyond your own damn nose, that pissing people off is only going to make some people leave? Let there be democrats, republicans, Dr. Suess, who cares???? Stick to the friggin point! And that is, what unites us, not what is going to distract and divide. When you have a fact, fine...till then, watch who you bash, or you will find yourself here all my yourself.

thank yeah churchkey, I would like for you to read the FCC changes for yourself (this is not a complete list, just what has come into question) I think you would be surprised at how far out of context this stuff has been taken.

The commission revised the rule limiting cross-ownership of a newspaper and a broadcast station in a market, as well as the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which prohibited a company from owning more than eight radio and television stations in the same community. In markets with nine or more television stations, no cross-ownership restrictions will apply. In markets with three or fewer television stations, no cross-ownership will be permitted among television, radio and newspapers. In markets with four to eight television stations, some kinds of cross-ownership will be permitted.
The commission revised the rule on multiple ownership of television stations in the same market. In the largest markets, a company now will be allowed to own three stations. But a company owning a station in the top four in ratings cannot purchase another in the top four.

The commision ruled that a network may own television stations reaching up to 45 percent of the national viewership, an increase from 35 percent. However, by retaining, at least for the time being, a formula that discounts viewers of UHF stations, the change permits a network to reach as much as 90 percent of the nation's television audience over all. The commission said it would phase out the formula over a period that could last many years.

The commission retained the local radio ownership limit, which permits a company to own up to eight stations in the largest cities, but changed the way it defines markets in a way that proponents say tightens the rule and critics say loosens it.

The commission retained the dual-network ownership prohibition, which prevents a merger of any of the top four national networks.

Outoftouch,
I liked everything Murray said in that linked article.

Jazzmary2U,
You betcha ; - )

captdunsel,
Yea, I heard early this morning on NPR that the people in congress were “barraged” with online petitions. I thought: Yes! We made a difference!

~goingnova

odiodin, I respectfully think you are way off base.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're wrong this time. The Democrats will certainly do anything to make the Republicans look bad, just as the Reps will do to the Dems. Except the Dems attempts are usually a little more scatter-brained. The republican party has some substance behind it, whereas the dems seem to be completely losing it. But it seems to me like you would rather see Republicans as good guys and Democrats as bad instead of really studying what's going on.

But concerning the RIAA issue, both sides are mostly wrong. And both good and bad guys come from both sides.

Free press is probably the single most important ideal we have this country behind freedom of speech, which allows for free press. If you don't have free press, then all you get is "Saddam Hussein News" or whatever you would like to call it... you get the point. Journalists with a passion for reporting and 'uncovering the story' no longer exist. What you end up with is government mouth pieces that are perfectly happy to tell the public what they need to hear to keep them at bay. You don't get information and nobody knows what is going on, thus allowing your government to run corrupt and wild without the public knowing a thing about it until they see that their freedoms have been pulled out from under them like a throw-rug.

Example 1: FoxNews. Free Press, but biased press. They failed to ever speak a word of the Patriot Act, an atrocity that rivals that of 9/11 itself, simply because they have a republican bias. So what happened was the act made it without a squeek and nobody ever questioned it. It's only now FINALLY in the news (biased, but still free thank god). All it took was the general sentiment of the networks to allow our government to hit the backspace on our 4th amendment rights and pretend they were never there. I oversimplified some, since CNN pretty much failed to mention it as well, but the point is this: The media didn't make it a big deal, so we lost rights. That simple. So what happens when the media is owned by just a few corporations? Basically, it just gets worse. I would die for this cause. I have no will to live in a country without the right to fair trial or free press.

Sherminator,
I don't think you get my point, but thats ok. I should make myself clearer.

I am very pleased with the FCC under Powell. They have gone a long way toward bringing broadband internet and HDTV to the masses.. You didn't hear about that though. All you hear is how the FCC is trying to let loose a "media orgy" that will allow large coorporations to monopolize what you hear and/or view, and that simply is not the case here. The rule changes have strict provisions against any company gaining control over a market. It only loosens the restriction on how many markets one company can be in. That in itself is not a threat to any of the "big four" national networks. Additionaly, I don't see how this will do anything but improve competition in larger markets.

Of course Bush would veto the repeal. He needs those changes to stay in place. He needs them so all the networks can reach out a little further and swallow up soem more independent stations that don't feel obligated to run network swill or Presidential Jedi Mind Tricks.
Please feel free to dismiss this post as the ramblings of a madman.

Stevie G The Dance Machine

Odiodin, what is a monopoly. History show that we traveled this trail in the past and maybe, just MAYBE this why the law was laid down to keep from just a few fatcats thrusting their opoins on others. Where is the freedom of press if only a few say what can and cannot be reported. From the beginning of writen history, he who controls the written words that are used to teach with becomes the master of blind fools. Hitler burned books because they were not of his belief. The preist burned the Mayan records of a lost culture in the name of their god. And many others have tried to control all of the written info of others so that they only know what they want them to know. NO JUST A FEW owning what we here, read and see is what our fore fathers fought for. Your own poltical veiw spout freedom for all not a few. Then why all the double talk?

goingnova, I also liked everything Murray said in that article.

It gave me the biggest laugh I've has in a long time and reminded me why I shouldn't vote for the dems.

More Murray foolishness:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/140941.shtml


What a crackpot.

Yea, I noticed a lot of anti-democrat hype on newsmax. Noting new to me. I've heard it mostly on radio talk shows. But that's ok. Everybody's entitled to an opinion, just some of us choose to think for ourselves and aren't effected by the spin.

~goingnova

I'm really starting to wonder how this Boycott is going to hold together.
Sure we all have different opinions on many issues, but if we keep arguing with each other over things other than the RIAA we will have no chance at winning.

Yea, no doubt huh? Everything from decmorcrats and republicans to how encryption works, LOL ; - )

Don't worry, as a collective of people, we are very slow to progress, but eventually, we do end up getting things done.

~goingnova

The commission refused to listen to the people.

Commissioner Copps predicted AT a Phoenix public hearings (which the local conglomerates were all invited to, did not attend and failed to even print the fact that the hearings would take place) that the FCC as a whole would not respond to the voice of the public.

This is totally political. The people of the United States have no say in what happens to us. Pre$ident Bu$h will see to that.

Democracy is dead. Now we must decide between anarchy and tyranny.

...unless the hurricane destroys Washington D.C., which would be the first time in years that justice prevailed in our nation's capital.

ok i bleave the FCC is evil and cruppet and that follows thay wear from the begning meant to stop true free press bye imposeing rules fees and what not to stop indapentdent news channles from poping up and telling the truth and that whas thair begning
now for thair latest actions lets say the big 5 yes i'm talking about the lables behind the riaa what if those 5 companeys owned all media stations in the usa humm lets think about that one thay do.....now lets take a closer look at these new rules well since these five companeys now controle the media witch thay do....and controle music that is played on every redio station in the usa and every channle that plays music in the world witch that gives them a total of about 15-30 channles on cable on any given cable provider hummm well thats all true becose if you look at the bottom line every lable has a parent and every parent to the lables has about 9-30 kids that infest are media and other channles of in and lock down are stores with inferer product well this is looking more and more like the big 5 are a big monoply and you say OdiOdin that any one of these markets needs further expanding? mabey with these new rules we could see a walt disney merger with lets say sony and to top that off might as well merge aol/time with microsoft well thats all legal now becose thay can rech 90% of all amracans that means from now on when you watch MSNBC it will now be known as AOL.MS.TIME.nbc lol that is just one or two of the things that could and probly would happin if you look at it that way it could be devasating to are boycott becose remember we are not really boy cotting the riaa we are boy cotting AOL,time warnner,nbc,abc,fox,sony,emi,vivendi,GE,bertlesman,microsoft,techtv

cut my post off well any way all of the aboved are parts of the riaa and many more on top of that lets just say the big 5 own most of every thing you see hear and do in the world

why make it ezeyer for them to own even more

The FCC rule changes do not affect companies like Aol/time warner, nbc, abc, fox, etc. They are broadcasters and already reach nation wide.

The rules are to help private companies that own those local stations. Like Young Broadcasting owns our local ABC station here. Under the revised rules Young Broadcasting could now buy more ABC stations elsewhere, or merge with another company, but could never own a CBS,NBC, or FOX station. However they could own say a WB station and a newspaper in the same market. Wouldn't more local tv and newspapers compete with the national broadcasters? sure would.

I the vote that passed SJ res 17 was a good vote. I watched the entire debate, and saw dissaproval of the new "FCC rule set" from both republicans and democrats. I even kept a notebook in front of me, and kept notes, and names of politicians used.

At the end of the debate, I was convinced that the resolution was a protection to the tangent media in those areas, and allows for local concerns to reach the media there.

I was also convinced that the new "FCC rule set" gave media moguls, (some members of the RIAA), more viewers/readers to spread there version of the news too.

I am thankful that the Senate agreed with me, and I'm hopeful that they were inclined to do so on there own accord. I would like to note here, that the honorable democratic senator from North Dakota Mr. Byron Dorgan said in his debate, "that he felt that 35% was too much control and should be 25%, and won the debate 10 years ago until lunch was called". He pretty plainly insinuated in his debate that the lobby's interest got control of the Senate that day 10 years ago. I'm am very pleased that the American public took intrest in this important debate, and likewise control of the Senate.

I just wanted to add a copy of this letter from my e-mail inbox to this forum.
------------------------------------

Dear Free Press E-activist,

Today the Senate delivered a strong 55 - 40 vote to roll back the FCC
rules by approving the "Resolution of Disapproval," which would nullify
the entire June 2 FCC decision. This is another crucial victory -- won
in the face of stiff opposition from Big Media lobbyists -- in a tough
fight to get a final rollback through Congress. But it's not over.

We won today because of your petitions and phone calls. Last week we
hand-delivered 340,000 petitions to the Senate. Phones rang off the
hook, and it made all the difference.

In the next month we will see another crucial vote in the Senate, as
well as a full court press to get the rollback through the House.

You made the difference today and you will again, when the next vote
reaches the Senate floor.

Wow, thanks for sharing that with us, theHERMIT. I thought I was the only one thinking that 35% still sounded like too much.

~goingnova

thank you goingnova!!!
I have hopes that OdiOdin also has a response.

reposting, ;(

I feel his post are an inportant part of this thread, and he knows so much about it.

I'm not sure I understand the gist of what's being argued here. I see it as the question "Is more media ownership in one market good or bad".
I for one feel that it might be a good thing of local ownership was limited. I can't see one company, be it AOL-TW, Gannet, Turner or whoever, owning several media outlets in the same area. There would be no diversity of information. YOu'd turn on your radio to hear the same information as you would on your tv or read in your local newspaper. So, I guess "decentralisation" is a good thing. Provides for me to be able to watch CNN and get different versions (spins if you will) on the RIAA debacle. I guess I'm just silly in that I like to hear a few different versions of one story, instead of one version of many stories.
ttmmm