FCC Democrats Rally Consolidation Foes in Seattle
Copps, Adelstein Rip Into FCC, Chairman Martin at Media-Ownership Hearing
Federal Communications Commission Democrats laid into the commission majority Friday at the FCC's final media-ownership hearing, in Seattle.
"Did you ever notice that the FCC is always ready to run the fast break for big media, but it's the four-corner stall when it comes to serving the public interest?" commissioner Michael Copps said. "Well, it's fast-break time again." He pointed out that he had been in Seattle twice before for media-ownership hearings, including in March 2003, just before "then-vhairman of the FCC Michael Powell shoved his near-catastrophic rules through the commission."
Powell succeeded with the vote of current chairman Kevin Martin and against the strong dissents of Copps and Democrat Jonathan Adelstein, who also took aim at consolidation and at the "last-minute" nature of the Seattle hearing. "It is more than coincidence that the same last-minute announcement was made for the Washington, D.C., localism hearing that was just held on Halloween. This pattern points to a conscious effort to minimize turnout and to just check the box that these hearings were held. The goal is to let big media have their way," he said, telling the audience that they were "just a little speed bump along the road to further media concentration."
Looking to rally the troops, Adelstein said: "You are here tonight because you will not let your voices be swept under the rug as the FCC does the bidding of media conglomerates If the majority of the FCC opposes the majority of America in the name of the 'public interest,' you will see a willful act of arrogance. You will see a handful of unelected bureaucrats telling you, 'We know what's in your interest better than you know for yourselves.' That will face a harsh judgment by your elected representatives on both sides of the aisle in Congress, with Washington state leading the way."
One member of the commission's Republican majority, Deborah Taylor Tate, said the public interest "may mean different things to different people."
She suggested that interest could be served by the FCC recognizing the "alternative formats and technologies through which local news is delivered to citizens today," the "global, digital, personalized, mobile information sources," available "whenever and wherever they may be," and taking those into account "when fashioning media-ownership rules that will take us into the next decade, where an even more tech-savvy generation awaits."
The generally deregulatory 2003 ownership-rule rewrite was ultimately stayed by a federal court and sent back to the FCC for better justification, which Martin is trying to do by the end of the year, with a lot of pushback from Hill Democrats who oppose consolidation.
© 2007 Broadcasting & Cable
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
21 Comments so far
Show AllI can't NOT share this observation. EVERY one of Bush appointees looks like a church choir boy. They are such evident followers of authoritarian father-knows-best creeds, and having watched The Matrix again, damn if these boys don't LOOK like those Mr. Smith clones!
I was at this hearing.
This article is horribly neglegent with the coverage it gives, or doesn't give, which is more important.
Seattle's town hall was ALIVE with passion for the entire 7 hours of these proceedings. It was like political spirituality. I'm not a poet, but I wish I was so I could put it into words.
Everyone who spoke had great things to say, and it all boiled down to one idea.
The public says NO to media consolidation.
Even after only 5(really 4) buisness days notice of the event, almost all the seats were full. 280 people registered to speak. The only voices who advocated change in fcc rules were 4 of the 20 panelists in the television media field. The other panelist were involved in the media, worked for clear channel, or owned newspapers and even thay said no to big media.
We even had some local politicians speak on behalf of maintaining cross ownership rules, and half of them were republicans. Media homoginization is bad for everyone except big media. The 'Democrat' spin that the "broadcasting and Cable" newswire puts on it is divisive and misleading.
Here's what we do:
Tell your Representatives in the House and the Senate to support legislation Trent Lott(yes trent lott) and Byron Dorgan promise to introduce to prevent relaxation of media ownership laws!
peace be with you
"People in this country need to realize the name "Powell" is synonymous with treason; not with patriotism"
It's synonymous with 'civilian massacre' as in the My Lai massacre coverup. It was Powell's business to deny that American soldiers could do such things.
"This guy Martin has the face of the perfect wimp, the perfect simp…these faces are horrifyingly empty and hollow. No one who looks like this should be allowed anywhere near any sort of levers."
Normally we don't judge by appearance, but they seem to have these bland chubby-Himmler-faced rat bureaucrats turned out from some cloning factory . . .
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is a remnant of the New Dealer's attempt to address injustices that were creeping into the world of American broadcasting: commercialism was supposedly crowding out the putative 'public interest'.
The current state of affairs, as the article so succinctly points out, is at low ebb; most aspects of all New Deal initiatives have pretty much been washed away since the days of Ronald the Jester. This article only reinforces my opinion of our government. Like the owner of a very shabby home, we need to start building a new home for our government in another location away from the District of Columbia, move in when it's finished and then sell off the marble facades of Washington to the highest bidder.
The first plank in the new government should be to break up the monolithic Federal government and establish regional government centered on metropolitan population centers.
People in this country need to realize the name "Powell" is synonymous with treason; not with patriotism. The Powells are sell-outs. And what they have sold-out is America!
This country is going down the tubes-literally- while people like the Powells stand there licking a dollar bill! It's disgusting. Their sense of patriotism is word of mouth, only. They have more loyalty to the dollar bill, than they do anything else.
The public interest does not mean different things to different people. The public interest is an informed and responsible consensus or compromise with weight given to people (not groups or organizations but individuals) based on the level that their BASIC livelihood is affected. What is totally unacceptable is the society's failure to arrive at a truly just definition of the public interest, and its failure to place the public interest far above private interests. All preventable human-induced problems are caused by private interests. Today, the levels of these problems are catastrophic.
The FCC under BushCo is no longer a watchdog organization for the people. It has become just another BushCo lapdog.
This guy Martin has the face of the perfect wimp, the perfect simp...these faces are horrifyingly empty and hollow. No one who looks like this should be allowed anywhere near any sort of levers.
HAS FCC COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TATE BEEN CONTAMINATED WITH HER OWN PROPAGANDA?
by Barry Payne, Economist, Ph.D., ex-FCC staff
bbpayne@earthlink.net
" ... Deborah Taylor Tate, said the public interest "may mean different things to different people."
She suggested that interest could be served by the FCC recognizing the "alternative formats and technologies through which local news is delivered to citizens today," the "global, digital, personalized, mobile information sources," available "whenever and wherever they may be," and taking those into account "when fashioning media-ownership rules that will take us into the next decade, where an even more tech-savvy generation awaits.""
So the Commissioner is saying (paraphrased),
"the public interest that means different things to different people ... could be served by FCC recognition of alternative formats and technologies through which ... content (including local news) from multiple sources (global, digital, personal, mobile) is delivered to citizens."
Let's try again Commissioner. If the FCC "recognizes" ALTERNATIVE FORMATS AND TECHNOLOGIES, that clearly implies SEPARATE OWNERSHIP of the same, does it not? Surely you're not implying such alternatives - to be meaningful - exist under the SAME ownership are you?
If so, that would be like recognizing the SAME owner uses, for example, print, broadcast and cable to get the word out ... oh, you DID mean that ...
Well then, lets clarify. When the FCC "recognizes alternatives", that would NOT mean alternatives for CONSUMERS would it? Wow, silly us for not being TECH-SAVVY as you say.
You mean instead, alternatives for ONE OWNER who provides content to MANY consumers using EITHER print, broadcast, cable and so forth.
To clarify, let's divide everything between PIPES and the CONTENT that flows through them. We just did the PIPES and confirmed that the FCC recognizes "alternatives" as the MULTIPLE PIPES of ONE OWNER. Good enough.
Now Commissioner, you describe the CONTENT - local news - as having multiple sources from "global, digital, personal and mobile".
Well again, we consumers must have missed that lecture in Telecom 101. How can "digital" or "mobile" be a "source" of local news? How can "global news" be "local news"? Are you using FCC interns again for your speeches?
Perhaps you meant to say, for example, that local news could be transmitted digitally through a mobile device. But that wouldn't make sense as CONTENT. Instead, we'd be back to those "alternative" PIPES controlled by ONE OWNER, this time including a "mobile" pipe.
The only interpretation left is that "global, digital, personal and mobile" sources qualify as ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF CONTENT, which implies each source of content has a DIFFERENT OWNER, correct?
No? Different subject, same mistake. What's good for the PIPES is good for the CONTENT you say? And that means "alternative content" under ONE OWNER just like the pipes.
Now it's coming together. The public interest is served by putting "alternative content" under ONE OWNER and alternative PIPES under ONE OWNER, where the two owners are not the same.
Almost? Keep concentrating you say? Put more CONTENT AND PIPES under ONE OWNER. Ok, we finally have it.
The FCC recognizes "alternatives" to exist the same way Cable and Satellite TV recognizes hundreds of useless channels as "alternatives" in the form of forced bundles and packages sold at exhorbitant prices.
"Alternative" broadband service in many areas consist of only ONE landline cable or DSL provider and most remaining areas by a DUOPOLY of the same.
The absurd degree of ANTI-COMPETITIVE concentration of media ownership of CONTENT and PIPES that exists already is not enough. You and your two Republican colleagues are going to "fashion media ownership rules that will take us into the next decade".
The same way you've already taken the U.S. to the backseat with global broadband penetration and bandwidth?
Congratulations beforehand on your new media jobs through the revolving door with little or no competition. Say hello to Commissioners Kennard and Powell for us when you arrive, all of you, such outstanding guardians for our most cherished freedoms to speak and listen.
In the future, to better NOT describe what the FCC is doing, seek out some tips from Commissioner Martin. He's quite good at it.
"One member of the commission's Republican majority, Deborah Taylor Tate, said the public interest "may mean different things to different people."
An "alternative format" for local news alone is not going to justify a usurpation by big-media. Public interest goes far beyond local news; and we don't want to risk the increasing possiblity of that news being manipulated by big media.
Yes, public interest may mean different things to different people; however, if you're comparing the interests of big media with the interests of average citizens who are looking for a variety of opinions from many different news sources, it should be evident that the wishes and interests of the public will not be served if the FCC enables a select few to corner the media market.
That's a no-brainer!
RE: peacenik62 November 10th, 2007 4:08 pm
"Regarding the link to natvan.com: that site appears to be a hard-core racist web site and I wouldn't rely on it for any information other than "white man is the victim" propoganda."
It's not racist. It merely points out MSM domination by Zionist leaning Jewish people. I would remind everyone that not all Zionists are Jewish, and not all Jewish pople are Zionists (FYI there are white evangelistic Christian Zionists also). It's not about race or religion, rather money, control, and politics. See this for more info:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/notjews.cfm
A typical ploy of the neo-Con Zionist fascists is to divide with claims of Racist, anti-semite, or along the lines of religious confrontation. It's a common tactic to keep us fighting among ourselves while they steal everythng in site.
In the post above I apologize for posting the same link twice. The second link should have been:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
The minimum required across the board is to return to ALL New Deal Regulations set up after the Great Depression.
Corruption is run rampant in government -- in every agency. Nothing is being decided in for the common good --- everything is being decided for the benefit of the few.
And, while we're at it --- let's overturn patriarchy and "Manifest Destiny" --- two more insanities which have led to the suicidal practices of overpopulation and abuse of nature which has created Global Warming.
Cut the patriarchy's ability to use violence in every arena --- from war to exploitation of animal-life --- and we'll be getting somewhere.
Regarding the link to natvan.com: that site appears to be a hard-core racist web site and I wouldn't rely on it for any information other than "white man is the victim" propoganda.
RE: Juliania November 10th, 2007 1:10 pm
"I googled but have been unable to find any more discussion about this hearing. I would appreciate it if somebody has a link - it seems to be off the radar completely. I didn't hear it discussed, of course, on any of the Friday news programs"
Juliania. I don't have a link about this story, but do have one about media consolidation that explains the WHY of why this story gets no mention in the MSM.
Public outcry, lead by the 3.3 milion member MoveOn.org, forced the FCC to back down in 2003 on further consolidation. Is it any wonder the same media, controlled by a few giants, who already have too much control of the MSM, would make every effort to smear MoveOn.org for their realistic portrayal of Petraeus=Betrayus?
http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/
After you see WHO owns the media, and the WHY they insist on more consolidation, you might be interested in seeing WHAT their overall game plan is. Of the 14 points listed #6 deals with media:
http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/
What we need to do is not get rid of the FCC, but give it's power back and make it's decisions based on facts and what the public wants not what large corporations want which is what happened to the FCC in the early 80's. As a Ham Radio Operator and a person who has been licensed to operate everything from Radio Telegraph to voice over internet, I think I know a few things. But giving control over media services to just a few large companies is not in the public interest. However the current administration and lawmakers in Congress will vote for where the money is comming from.
Also buried in the Yahoo news:
quanticle writes "According to the New York Times, the FCC is planning to unveil new regulations for the cable market that will lower barriers to entry for independent programmers. The rules would be aimed at stopping the growth of existing cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner, while seeking to encourage more small companies to get into the field. Also, earlier this month, the FCC struck down the practice of having exclusive contracts between cable providers and apartment owners. All in all, this looks like a welcome infusion of competition into an otherwise stagnant market. The impact that this will have on the network neutrality debate is unclear."
I put in "FCC" to see what Yahoo news had and turned up this same article by John Eggerton broadcasting & Cable, 11/10/2007 10:40:00 AM. Not exactly in the headlines
Governor Gregoire was scheduled to testify. You'd think that would have made the news.
I googled but have been unable to find any more discussion about this hearing. I would appreciate it if somebody has a link - it seems to be off the radar completely. I didn't hear it discussed, of course, on any of the Friday news programs.
Is there anyway to get rid of the FCC? They are helping to destroy this country. Propaganda is not media. Mind control is dangerous. Lying to the American people to start illegal wars is treasonous. Outing a CIA agent isn't actually smart.
I say start over. Get rid of the FCC. Give all people a chance to participate in all forms of media. There is a quite, domestic war going on. We the people need to be informed and actively participating. Also, investigative journalism would be nice. I would like to have seen the media investigate and ask questions about 9/11/01. What happened to the anthrax at that same time that was traced to a military lab and then the story was dropped? Why didn't they investigate the Downing Street memo that the London Times exposed on 5/01/05 regarding as early as 7/02 Bush stated he would go to war with Iraq and fix the policy around weapons and terrorism? Why no real photos of the Iraq war and the wounded and dead military coming home? Where is the truth?
"then-vhairman of the FCC Michael Powell shoved his near-catastrophic rules through the commission."
I assume everyone on this thread realizes that Michael Powell is the son of (Mr. Sell your soul to the devil)Colin Powell.
My question is:Can Adelstein roll back the FCC rules that Powell was able to get in place?