12voltman59
Dec 15, 2007, 12:48 AM
Well all—this is gonna be one mega ramble---I have to tell ya that from the git-go—but I’m gonna post it anyhow---I hope for those who read—that you find the post of interest and even if you don’t agree totally with what I say here—you at least read it with an open mind---
This issue I am discussing here is that of the proposal by the FCC to loosen the rules regarding “cross ownership of media” especially relating to ownership of television and radio stations.
The following link from the LA Times is a good place to start-I also have a list of stories added to the end of this article:
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc14dec14,1,7976868.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
In this instance –this posting deals with the actions of Kevin J. Martin—current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
Martin replaced Colin Powell's son Michael as chairman a year or so ago and as bad as Powell had been—Powell had resigned under much fire from many quarters for a number of reasons---it seems that Martin is even worse.
Several years ago--the FCC under Powell's direction, had tried to greatly relax the cross-ownership rules regarding whether media companies could own all forms of media in a town or city, but due to overwhelming public opposition to that plan—the commission had to drop those plans.
Martin resurrected the plan in the past few months and "fast-tracked it"--he now wants his agency to move on the matter before Christmas--attempts have been made in Congress to stop his actions
At the few, hastily arranged public hearing meetings--the sentiment of the public's views against his proposal trumped that of those in favor.
If you do read through most of the stories I have included below—you will see--the big media companies all want this plan or a less restrictive plan to go through--one thing that is interesting--I did not see much media coverage about the few public hearings that were held---I saw a portion of one on CSPAN not long ago--and even though it is hard to tell from the way the cameras were set up how many attended the event---I saw person after person get up to speak on the issue and all who spoke were not in favor of this proposal. I had seen some item on the net a month or so ago about the large volume of mail the FCC had received on this subject both electronic and paper--and that the vast majority of those messages were against the proposal---
It does seem the people are trying to speak--but a deaf ear has been turned to those voices and the only voices that Chairman Martin seems to hear are those of the media conglomerates and those inside his head--he is surely not listening to "vox populi."
I had originally planned to post this in the military thread earlier today—but had decided against it---but after watching this evening’s edition of Bill Moyers Journal—which had a segment on this issue—I decided to post it—in its own thread.
The program discussed those public forums about the issue, including the final one—which they included video of over a thousand people addressing the commission until one a.m. held in Seattle last month—within a few days—an op-ed piece, written by Chairman Martin, appeared in the New York Times in which he laid out the case about why changing the rules on this issue are so “vital” with no mention at all about public opposition to the proposed rule change.
Since the publication of the piece---Martin appeared before a Senate Committee and was questioned by the Senate panel on why he feels this rule change is needed, why it needs to be done so fast and if the fact that such public concern was raised on the issue—could the commission not hold off on their vote, especially considering the Senate is set to vote on a bill after the new year on this matter. It was also noted by one of the Senators that op-ed pieces like the one done by Martin was most likely submitted well in advance of the public hearing in Seattle.
The Senators also asked him if had taken any of the negative reactions of the public into consideration—he basically shrugged off those questions.
It was also discussed that he had first announced his goal of changing the rules back in June 2006 with the proposed rules having been basically unchanged in all that time.
The Senate committee, on a unanimous and bipartisan basis, voted to oppose the rule change and under questioning by the Senators including Alaska Senator Ted Stevens—(a very conservative Republican) and John Kerry asked Martin point blank for the commission to at least hold off on their action until after the beginning of the new year.
Martin basically told them, “No” and after been asked by the Senate to hold off---issued a press release the next day saying the commission’s vote on the matter will take place on Tuesday, December 18.
No doubt the rule change will pass---because all three Republican members of the commission, including Martin, have already said they are going to vote for the change.
You may ask what does this have to do with anything??
Well—we have already seen the massive consolidation of media ownership in America and I think a pretty good argument can me made that this consolidation has not been good for our nation in terms of the way the media does its job as watchdog over the actions of government and with the rise of large corporations that have perhaps even more impact on our lives than government itself--- reportage of how those entities conduct themselves as well.
These new rules will basically free the large media organizations the ability to buy up and control even more of our media outlets. It stresses the desirability of large media outlets buying up those third and fourth tier radio stations.
The large conglomerate media outlets like Clear Channel have already taken control of most of the largest stations in many media markets all over the country.
Those lower tier stations are the ones still most likely still under local ownership, control and management. They are the ones most likely still bringing local news and information and also program their formats to be tailored to the local markets instead of being remotely programmed from far distant locations and piping content and such to the local stations.
To watch the Bill Moyers segment on this issue, go to
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/profile2.html
other sources and articles:
www.freepress.net/news/28429
www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=140375&pt=todaysnews
www.tvweek.com/news/2007/11/opposition_could_derail_martin.php
www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=027856
www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/509
www.reclaimthemedia.org/legislation_and_regulation/martin_races_ahead_with_plan_t%3D5608
This issue I am discussing here is that of the proposal by the FCC to loosen the rules regarding “cross ownership of media” especially relating to ownership of television and radio stations.
The following link from the LA Times is a good place to start-I also have a list of stories added to the end of this article:
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc14dec14,1,7976868.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
In this instance –this posting deals with the actions of Kevin J. Martin—current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
Martin replaced Colin Powell's son Michael as chairman a year or so ago and as bad as Powell had been—Powell had resigned under much fire from many quarters for a number of reasons---it seems that Martin is even worse.
Several years ago--the FCC under Powell's direction, had tried to greatly relax the cross-ownership rules regarding whether media companies could own all forms of media in a town or city, but due to overwhelming public opposition to that plan—the commission had to drop those plans.
Martin resurrected the plan in the past few months and "fast-tracked it"--he now wants his agency to move on the matter before Christmas--attempts have been made in Congress to stop his actions
At the few, hastily arranged public hearing meetings--the sentiment of the public's views against his proposal trumped that of those in favor.
If you do read through most of the stories I have included below—you will see--the big media companies all want this plan or a less restrictive plan to go through--one thing that is interesting--I did not see much media coverage about the few public hearings that were held---I saw a portion of one on CSPAN not long ago--and even though it is hard to tell from the way the cameras were set up how many attended the event---I saw person after person get up to speak on the issue and all who spoke were not in favor of this proposal. I had seen some item on the net a month or so ago about the large volume of mail the FCC had received on this subject both electronic and paper--and that the vast majority of those messages were against the proposal---
It does seem the people are trying to speak--but a deaf ear has been turned to those voices and the only voices that Chairman Martin seems to hear are those of the media conglomerates and those inside his head--he is surely not listening to "vox populi."
I had originally planned to post this in the military thread earlier today—but had decided against it---but after watching this evening’s edition of Bill Moyers Journal—which had a segment on this issue—I decided to post it—in its own thread.
The program discussed those public forums about the issue, including the final one—which they included video of over a thousand people addressing the commission until one a.m. held in Seattle last month—within a few days—an op-ed piece, written by Chairman Martin, appeared in the New York Times in which he laid out the case about why changing the rules on this issue are so “vital” with no mention at all about public opposition to the proposed rule change.
Since the publication of the piece---Martin appeared before a Senate Committee and was questioned by the Senate panel on why he feels this rule change is needed, why it needs to be done so fast and if the fact that such public concern was raised on the issue—could the commission not hold off on their vote, especially considering the Senate is set to vote on a bill after the new year on this matter. It was also noted by one of the Senators that op-ed pieces like the one done by Martin was most likely submitted well in advance of the public hearing in Seattle.
The Senators also asked him if had taken any of the negative reactions of the public into consideration—he basically shrugged off those questions.
It was also discussed that he had first announced his goal of changing the rules back in June 2006 with the proposed rules having been basically unchanged in all that time.
The Senate committee, on a unanimous and bipartisan basis, voted to oppose the rule change and under questioning by the Senators including Alaska Senator Ted Stevens—(a very conservative Republican) and John Kerry asked Martin point blank for the commission to at least hold off on their action until after the beginning of the new year.
Martin basically told them, “No” and after been asked by the Senate to hold off---issued a press release the next day saying the commission’s vote on the matter will take place on Tuesday, December 18.
No doubt the rule change will pass---because all three Republican members of the commission, including Martin, have already said they are going to vote for the change.
You may ask what does this have to do with anything??
Well—we have already seen the massive consolidation of media ownership in America and I think a pretty good argument can me made that this consolidation has not been good for our nation in terms of the way the media does its job as watchdog over the actions of government and with the rise of large corporations that have perhaps even more impact on our lives than government itself--- reportage of how those entities conduct themselves as well.
These new rules will basically free the large media organizations the ability to buy up and control even more of our media outlets. It stresses the desirability of large media outlets buying up those third and fourth tier radio stations.
The large conglomerate media outlets like Clear Channel have already taken control of most of the largest stations in many media markets all over the country.
Those lower tier stations are the ones still most likely still under local ownership, control and management. They are the ones most likely still bringing local news and information and also program their formats to be tailored to the local markets instead of being remotely programmed from far distant locations and piping content and such to the local stations.
To watch the Bill Moyers segment on this issue, go to
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/profile2.html
other sources and articles:
www.freepress.net/news/28429
www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=140375&pt=todaysnews
www.tvweek.com/news/2007/11/opposition_could_derail_martin.php
www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=027856
www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/509
www.reclaimthemedia.org/legislation_and_regulation/martin_races_ahead_with_plan_t%3D5608