Sign the Petition to Stop FCC Ruling!

[nhfearme]

Many of you have posted important articles about this threat to our Democracy and our FarScape. Dava was kind enough to send me this. This site link also contains links to articles and press contact information.

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

The FCC plans to make its ruling on June 2 that would allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned by one company. I think this is important so I’m posting the entire email here: Originally from Dava
I wouldn't usually bother people with political stuff, but I think this is really important. I apologize if you end up with more than one copy, I sent it out to my entire mailing list. Even if you don't agree with moveon.org's position I suggest writing to your congressman anyway, just to let them know we're paying attention. Feel free to forward this information to anyone you think would be interested.

-Dava

***From Moveon.org
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission is planning on authorizing sweeping changes to the American news media. The rules change could allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned by one company.

NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox could have the same corporate parent. The resulting concentration of ownership could be deeply destructive to our democracy.

Congress is supposed to guard against monopoly power. But the upcoming rule change could change the landscape for all media and usher in an era in which a few corporations control your access to news and entertainment. Please join me in asking Congress and the FCC to support a diverse, competitive media landscape by going to:

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

You can also automatically have your comments publicly filed at the FCC.

When the folks at MoveOn.org talk to Congresspeople about this issue, the response is usually the same: "We only hear from media lobbyists on this. It seems like my constituents aren't very concerned with this issue." A few thousand emails could permanently change that perception.

Please join this critical campaign, and let Congress know you care.

Thanks.

--nh

[Digger]

I wasn't aware that the rules changes would allow all of the major networks to be owned by the same corporation. I was under the impression that the changes would allow the "coverage" a company could have to go from 35% to 45% of the population (or viewership, or whatever). And if the rules are not changed, would that mean that Viacom would not be able to purchase the SciFi Channel as it would increase it's coverage????

[nhfearme]

Digger :)

I had the info sitting in my email and didn't know it. :lol

Click the link for Moveon.org http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/ and read the articles through the site links.

Edit to say: from Jul " the FCC is voting on it and congress had a hearing on it this past monday.... "

[PrairieScaper]

I cannot locate this article online so I can't link to it, but the Kansas City Star's Star Business Weekly carried an AP article on Tuesday entitled "New Media Ownership Rules in Works." An Oregon paper carried a shorter version of the AP story: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=61433.
This is from the article:
"A rule preventing mergers among the four main TV networks -- NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox -- would remain in place under the proposal, the [government] officials said." That seems to be contrary to what the MoveOn site is saying.

Nevertheless, the other changes being proposed are big and I'm frustrated that I haven't heard more about this story in the news. Figures.

PBS Online Newshour is carrying a story with quotes from Mel Karmazin at Viacom, who apparently took some time out from reading Scaper letters ;) to defend the proposed changes.

Edited to add the link to the PBS Newshour story (silly me): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june03/commercehearing_05-13-03.html

[Vampgrrl]

Blah, I really don't care if one corp controls the airwaves now. They are full of crap as it is, and I seriously DOUBT any 1 comapny could legally buy everything.
All I give a shit about is Viacom buying Skiffy and putting Farscape back on. That's it. All I care about as TV is concerned.
Besides, I am a Libertarian anyhow, I dont have a problem with it.

[Selena]

Originally posted by Vampgrrl
Blah, I really don't care if one corp controls the airwaves now. They are full of crap as it is, and I seriously DOUBT any 1 comapny could legally buy everything.
All I give a shit about is Viacom buying Skiffy and putting Farscape back on. That's it. All I care about as TV is concerned.
Besides, I am a Libertarian anyhow, I dont have a problem with it.

You should care! Imagine if the people at Skiffy owned ALL the networks. That's what this law has the potential of allowing.

Rupert Murdoch tried this little game in Australia a number of years ago and fortunately the government stepped in and made it unlawful for anyone to own more than one form of media ... i.e. you can't own a newspaper and a TV station, or radio station.

[nhfearme]

Selena.

I care.

Originally posted by PrairieScaper
Nevertheless, the other changes being proposed are big and I'm frustrated that I haven't heard more about this story in the news. Figures. I may not know all the aspects of this issue but I know enough to see when we're being given the bum's rush!

I signed the petition and this is what I said to my representatives in the personal comments section:

"Are you aware that there seems to be a black out of this information generally from the news?

I left CNN running for 5 hours and never heard it. I watched all my local news channels and didn’t hear it. I picked up the newspaper and didn’t see it. You’d think that just maybe our trusted newscasters & journalists might be fearful to lose their paychecks over this. Or it could be a conspiracy. Naw, the media wouldn’t do that to us just to make money. Would they?

That is a definite red flag that the media has already decided that their interests outweigh those of the public."

:( Do we really want that?

[grapeshot]

Actually, the story has popped up in the newspapers occasionally. Most of the reporting would happen when Don Henley, or some other musician would testify in some hearing or other. It hasn't generally been reported in television news, though -- apart from PBS. Same with radio; I've only ever heard a few stories on this topic on some NPR shows. (Perhaps those of you who listen to Imus or watch O'Reilly can tell me if this has come up during their broadcasts?)

Those of you who say that you don't care, may care in about five years, when content in the media (particularly on television) will become even more bland and crappier. And don't forget, when only a few entities own ALL the available public media, both from the supply and the distribution standpoint, then there is effectively a monopoly. I wonder if ad rates will climb -- making it difficult for the little outfits to advertise. It's hard to know for sure what the consequences of relaxing FCC requirements will be, but it is clear that not enough public debate has taken place, and the the FCC seems only to have listened to one side of that debate.

[Vampgrrl]

I still don't care...Libertarian...free market.:ewink:

[nhfearme]

That's the point! If one company owns it all, it will no longer be a 'free' market.

Haven't you ever played Monopoly? One person tries to own it all and charges through the nose to anybody who tries to land on his properties or use his utilities.

I don't want to give the rights away to any joe blow billionare who wants to scoop up all the media in his hip pocket! The playing field for this is barely level as is.

I'd rather take my chances with today's rules to find a home for FarScape. If any large corporation holds the media by the balls (unless the CEO just happens to love FarScape) DK & Froon will be playing out FarScape with hand puppets on street corners.

[Jul]

ummmm. side note, congress isn't voting on it, the FCC is voting on it ;) and congress had a hearing on it this past monday....

take a moment to write your federal representatives and senators to let them know about your concerns on this and make sure to write to Michael Powell and the rest of the FCC commisioners that are voting on June 2nd.

here are email addresses you can write to:

How to Contact the FCC

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

and a snail mail address:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Remember that actual letters are much more effective than signing petitions, because they have your personal feelings on what they're voting on.

[nhfearme]

Originally posted by Jul
ummmm. side note, congress isn't voting on it, the FCC is voting on it ;) and congress had a hearing on it this past monday.... :eek:
Thanks Jul!

[MediaSavant]

It would appear to me that sending a letter directly to your representative and U.S. Senator would be a more productive way to express your POV than an online petition.

No matter what the issue.

[guyricardo]

Relax guys. The rules aren't been changes to allow anyone to own it all. And as far as I'm concerned, raising the cap from 35% to 45% will simply legalize some of what is already happening.

Companys like Viacom already own more that the legal 35%, and I doubt many people feel that they are being forced to be Viacom's mindless drannits.

I know in NYC, they own CBS and UPN. They also own several radio stations in NY, including KROCK, wich has strong ties with MTV and VH1. Guess what? Viacom owns them too. I have no idea if they have interests in newspapers in NY, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. And I'm not worried by it.

Given the vast number of media outlets available these days, I doubt that it would be possible (or prudent) for a single entity to control enough of those outlets to be a real concern. Maybe my view's a bit skewed living in the media capital of the Charted Territiories. Are there parts of the US where 45% ownership of all TV/radio/newspaper outlets would be oppressive?

I don't know the answer to that, but I think that we could use a little media consolidation. Free competition, economics and anti-trust laws should keep things in check.

OK, said my piece. If you still feel this is an issue, then take Jul's advice and write the FCC and congress. Just make sure you educate yourself before doing so.

[Jul]

guyricardo - point taken...

however, that said, there's a problem with the system...

Disney owns ABC, ESPN, the Disney Channel, E! Entertainment Television, A&E Entertainment, the History Channel, ABC Family, Toon Disney, Soapnet, Lifetime Television, Lifetime Movie Channel, Lifetime Real Woman, the Disney Studios, Buena Vista Television, the Style Channel, The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (now in the stanley cup finals :bounce: ) and that doesn't include the massive back end of parks, hotels, Radio Disney, etc..

GE owns NBC, MSNBC (partnership with Microsoft), CNBC, Bravo, & Telemundo

Viacom owns CBS, UPN, Showtime, MTV, MTV|2, VH1, Nickelodeon, CMT, Blockbuster Video, BET, Noggin, the N, Nick at Nite, TV Land, Comedy Central, TNN, The Movie Channel (TMC), FLIX, the sundance channel (partnership), the Paramount Studios, Infinity radio stations, Simon & Schuster (publishing house)

Vivendi owns everything under the Universal Entertainment umbrella - USA Channel, Sci-Fi Channel, Trio, Canal + (french movie co), Universal Studios, NewsWorld International, and that's only the stuff that they own in their television area.

News Corp (the parent company of Fox) owns Fox, FoxNews, FX, the Speed Channel, FoxSports, SkyeNews, twentieth century fox movie studios, DirecTv, Harper Collins Publishing, TV Guide, the New York Post, Fox Movie Channel, and the National Geographic Channel, Fox Television Studios,

AOL-Time Warner owns WB, HBO, the Warner Brothers studios, TBS, TNT, AOL the ISP, New Line Cinema, Cartoon Network, CNN, Court TV, DC Comics, cable systems, the Warner Brothers Record labels (which own lots of small offshoots), time magazine, people magazine, and hundreds of other titles, not including their own book publishing companies...

These companies are trying to create synergy between all the different areas of the subsidiaries they own, and figuring out just how much of the entertainment we absorb is really owned by 4 or 5 major companies is very scary because they have a lot of control over what we see and hear.... I don't want the media ownership laws to be loosened anymore than they already are because in my mind many of these companies are already bordering on monopolizing the industry...

[grapeshot]

Guy, maybe in a large market like NYC it's probably not a problem if 45% of any media market is controlled by one entity. I'm sure in such a large market, many smaller media outlets can also survive, and the consumer would still have some very real alternatives and choices between where they get their news and entertainment from.

It's in the mid-sized and smaller markets where this becomes more problematic. A media conglomerate that owns the city newspaper (most likely having already driven the competing newspaper out of business), and a television station, and up to 8 of the radio stations has a very powerful incentive to "realize synergies". This would mean controlling their costs by recycling the same content between their various media outlets. Furthermore, if a large media conglomerate from far far away controls 45% of all markets, then of course, they would be realizing ever larger "synergies" by providing the SAME programming and content all over the country. This has the effect of "Wal-Mart-izing" the local media. Once all the "little" local competition has been forced to go out of business, what's going to keep that large media outlet block in your city interested in your city?

In the mid-sized market that I live in, I already see a great deal of "nationally" produced content, and less and less local interest content. 16 of our two dozen or so radio stations are owned by TWO media companies. The little local radio station that used to have a polka show, ran an hour-long German show on Sunday mornings, and had the farm report every morning is long gone. Big deal, you sniff. Who likes polka music, why do Germans need their own show, and let the farmers get their report on the internet. Note that every one of those shows had a devoted audience, but unfortunately not an audience large enough to satisfy the corporate entity that took over the radio station. Where do you suppose that marginalized audience went? You can bet they're listening to the radio a lot less than they used to.

Large media conglomerates have only ONE goal, and that is to maximize their earnings and satisfy their shareholders. They only can do this by "realizing synergies", which really means sharing content across a broad spectrum of media and markets -- or, in other words, cutting costs. In order to successfully do this, they must provide the LEAST offensive content to the largest possible audience. This then tends to make their content bland, inoffensive, and middle-of-the-road. (Let's not report on complex issues, because we'll lose our audience. Let's not take a chance on a script by an unproven author, we might lose our audience. Instead, we'll just clone our winning concepts over and over again.)

Small, privately owned media outlets are quite likely to be driven by other goals and missions, and not necessarily only the need to make money. (I don't mean that making money isn't important, but that some of these small media companies consider other goals, such as community service, equally as important.) They may decide that carrying a show that serves a small audience during a certain time period may earn them an intangible benefit which in the long run will provide a tangible benefit. The individual division managers in large media conglomerates cannot afford to take such a long-range view; they're constantly driven to show immediate results.

Gradually, less and less people are watching television, listening to radio, or reading newspapers. Pundits will tell you it's because people are getting stupider; or that it's because people have more things competing for their free time (internet, GameBoys, etc.). I wonder, however, if it's really because there's less and less interesting content from these media outlets.

You say that all these proposed rule changes do is "legalize" what's already effectively in place. However you're assuming that the status quo is acceptable.

[waltersgirl]

the fact that Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, men who own many, many, many, many, many things, both believe that this is a bad idea should give everyone pause.

[nhfearme]

My personal comments got through to my Congressman, Adam Smith, from the Moveon.org site. Here's his letter.May 22, 2003

Dear (my real name),

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) proposed weakening of media ownership rules. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important matter.

I agree with you that the FCC's current rules regulating media consolidation are essential to protecting people's access to diverse sources of information. That is why I oppose the FCC's proposed rule changes, which would allow for media companies to own greater shares of local television and newspaper markets in cities and towns around the country. I am also cosponsoring a resolution calling on the FCC not to weaken media ownership rules, to examine and better inform the public about the consequences of weakening such rules, and to allow for extensive public review and comment on any proposed changes to such rules. This resolution, H. Res. 218, is currently under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. I assure you this resolution will have my full support if it comes to the floor for a vote.

As you may know, the FCC's Board of Commissioners is scheduled to vote on the proposed rule changes on June 2nd. It is my hope that FCC Chairman Michael Powell will heed the voices of the thousands of Americans who have contacted the FCC with their concerns about the rule changes and, at the very minimum, postpone a vote to allow more time for public review and comment about the proposed changes. Please be assured that I will be monitoring this issue closely in the weeks ahead, and will continue to work to protect Americans' access to diverse sources of information and to preserve media attention to local issues.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important matter. If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Adam Smith
Member of Congress
I found more info on resolution, H. Res. 218:

http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/diversity/fcc.html

[gurnemanz]

. . . and, in fact, it seems to me that Libertarians are obliged to stand up and be counted more often than the general populace, not less often.

If this attempt was an effort at raw capitalism, I might agree with you. But that's not the idea, not at all. It's another attempt at seizing the media and keeping control of it.

This isn't capitalism; this is Big Brother sliding in while the United States is kept distracted by a crashing economy and all the lies and deceits of our foreign policy.

These are the real-world Peacekeepers, another brick in the wall of Bush doublespeak that has George Orwell spinning in his grave, the wall that will bar us from exercising basic freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

This is Big Time Smoke And Mirrors, on a scale Siegfried & Roy never imagined. And while you blink, Michael Powell will be stealing any chance you or your grandchildren will ever have for getting any information or entertainment from the media that hasn't been "approved for consumption."

Think about the Peacekeepers, and think about Ari Fleischer telling the White House Press Corps, "There are people with too much freedom in this country," and his repeated implicit threats that those in the press who question the regime closely about the facts and details "had better watch out."

Who do you want giving you permission to live freely? John Ashcroft? Thomas Jefferson?

Is that a choice or a bitter, bitter joke? And don't you see a consistent thread in all this? The corporations want us to be sheep-like lotus eaters. Resist them now! That's what we do here!

Get involved, before it's too late.

g.