Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Sometimes ignoring the facts just isn't enough: FCC orders media ownership study destroyed   ( divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

15835 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2006 at 7:21 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

140 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2006-09-14 07:46:30 PM  
hubiestubert: I don't think that means what you think it means...

2006-09-14 07:47:25 PM  
Yanich said the report was "extremely well done. It should have helped to inform policy."

Ah! Well, there's the problem. It was well done.

[image from too old to be available]

2006-09-14 07:48:26 PM  
Whidbey--I'd be happy to see the FCC, the IRS, the EPA, and the FDA actually doing their jobs, with the current powers that they refuse to exercise...
2006-09-14 07:48:28 PM  
The destruction of a rport like this is criminal at the very leat. If not strcitly illegal, at least civilly offensive.

I began my dream career in radio and TV at age 15, and worked solid as on-air talent, programmer and producer for almost 15 years before federal deregulation of media ownership in the mid-90's. Over the next 6 months the station I worked for at the time changed ownership THREE TIMES!!

Each time it was a larger and more distant corporate entity, who immedaitely scaled down the production staff and increased the sales staff accordingly. Eventually it became impossible to find a job in the industry that would pay a living wage. That limits the career potential of creative people on local levels.

Local news is only part of the picture. Watered down programming options are another. The dissolution of net neutrality is other important step towards the frightening limitations of news and entertainment options.

It's not Bush, kids...dereg happened with a stroke of Clinton's pen. Bush is just as much a tool as the rest of them.

Take media creation in to your own hands. And I don't mean posting more YouTube videos of your uncle getting whacked in the nuts by a football.

\Not a hippy
\\Not a commie
\\\Big slashie lover
2006-09-14 07:49:23 PM  
From Wikipedia:

* Disney, Viacom (and its spinoff CBS Corporation), Time Warner, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric together own more than 90% of the media holdings in the United States. Among other assets, Disney owns ABC, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, and Miramax Films; CBS Corporation owns CBS, Simon & Schuster editing group, etc.; Time Warner owns CNN, Times, AOL, ect.; Bertelsmann owns Arvato, Direct Group, RTL Group (which owns M6 TV channel, VOX and Five), etc.
2006-09-14 07:50:32 PM  
I also like the 1984 tag idea.

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]
2006-09-14 07:51:41 PM  
The good news is that soon enough, we can use anti-trust laws on the media conglomerates.

Well, unless of course, we get more folks in those conglomerates' pockets who tell us that there's no harm in it, right?
2006-09-14 07:52:03 PM  
It's a bit like the EPA with no budget for enforcement anymore. The current trend is for larger and LESS effective government. Any government feature that helps people, or protects the people against the government or corporations, it gets undercut and marginalized.
2006-09-14 07:52:06 PM  

2 replies in before Bush was blamed. You guys are slacking.

I blame Katie Couric.

/white after Labor Day?
//you must be joking
2006-09-14 07:52:20 PM  

So, at what point DO we decide this agency has too much power and demand its disbanding?

uhm, how do you arrive at this assertion ?

People in agency write very good report that should inform public policy, other people (more powerful) order the report destroyed. As a result, FCC does nothing to nobody.

There is a problem here alright, but "does nothing to nobody" is not usually a symptom of an organization that has too much power.
2006-09-14 07:54:19 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

All in all it's just another brick in the wall
2006-09-14 07:54:55 PM  
What would happen if some states elected to withdraw from the union?

Is it likely?

Is there any constitutional language that outlines a process? Would there essentially be a war? If there was a war which would be the key states needed to declare victory? If you just won a war to secede, wouldn't you just conquer the loser while you were at it?
2006-09-14 07:54:57 PM  
I still don't understand how corporate ownership of tv and radio stations benefits anyone.
2006-09-14 07:55:21 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

2006-09-14 07:57:16 PM  
Okay, vartian's tags are better. I have no .gif skills.
2006-09-14 07:59:27 PM  
2 replies in before Bush was blamed.

I hate to interrupt your moron-worship of W, but sometimes it really is his fault. Especially if it's something evil and unfair that exclusively benfits rich people and corporations at everyone else's expense.

Truth be told, this is more Reagan's fault, Bush is just farking obvious about it.
2006-09-14 07:59:34 PM  
Clinton was just as much a pansy about dereg as the Bush people are.


The process of destroying or classifying information that you don't want to hear or makes you look bad ? That's textbook Bush administration. It has happened so many times now, in so many situations, across every department. Of course, you can do that when your party also controls the House and Senate (where your colleagues are eager to enable this behavior).

So just remember kids, these are just the drips and dregs that we actually find out about.
2006-09-14 07:59:36 PM  
NutWrench: But I thought Clear Channel owned everything?

I've been saying for years that Viacom and FOX were bigger threats.....

A wonderful reference - Who Owns What
2006-09-14 08:00:45 PM  
shadesofblack: I just work from home and have an obscene amout of time on my hands :)
2006-09-14 08:01:26 PM  
Hang On Voltaire

I still don't understand how corporate ownership of tv and radio stations benefits anyone. "


-Wait a minute, that's a very un-HOV-like statement. WHO ARE YOU!?!?
2006-09-14 08:02:17 PM  
So, anyone got a link to a copy of that report?

//slash_command error: redo from start.
2006-09-14 08:02:18 PM  
this thread is useless without Conspiracy Theory Rock:
2006-09-14 08:02:20 PM  
Never since Enron has so much information been shreaded. Don't forget about the EPA New York air quality reports and many other issues. By far the most secretive and corupt administration ever. Do I blame the FCC? Not really, I'm sure the orders came down from the top. People tend to enjoy keeping their well paying govenment jobs and I'm sure threats were made. It's happened before. It scares the crap out of me the think about what hasn't yet been reported on.
2006-09-14 08:02:54 PM  
BTW, shadesofblack, that is the most awesome picture of a seal I have ever seen.
2006-09-14 08:03:44 PM  
Did anyone hear that Rupert Murdoch is going to purchase YouTube in a ten-figure deal? That's really frightening.

/gettin' the heebie jeebies :|
2006-09-14 08:05:28 PM  
Has anyone mentioned Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"?
2006-09-14 08:06:13 PM  
Waste of money if you ask me, studying something that's obvious to the casual observer. And either way, I thought local TV news was all pretty much the same formulaic crap - father-figure square white male anchorman, perky non-white female co-anchor, ex-jock on sports, hottie or gay doing the weather, two or three anonymous twentysomething cuties for stand-ups and other feature stories, and maybe one doughy old fart who's been there since '61 filing one story a week on local politics.


The analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of "on-location" news.

Read that last bit as "three minutes of pointless stand-up pieces where the reporter reads copy in front of a building that was the scene of an event that was over six hours previously."
2006-09-14 08:12:32 PM  
the really sad part, is that good local news is almost essential for good local government, which is almost a requirement for good national governmental.
2006-09-14 08:12:45 PM  
Gulper Eel: if you ask me,

Yeah, remind us to not.

five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts over, say , a half hour broadcast is ~15% more. Not trivial, and removed, is IMHO indicative of an overall restrictive and censorial effect.
2006-09-14 08:17:14 PM  

That was so wrong it felt right.


You're right. It goes without saying in this case.


I'm generally in favor of transparent free markets, but in the case of monopolies which the government hands out, there needs to be regulations. Similarly, the function of a free press aka the fourth branch of government, is to important to be controlled by a handful of corporations. This is why net neutrality is a good thing, by the way.

/transparency is important in government and in commerce.
//the market will not be free until information is equally available to all
///the underlying reason for transparency in the market is a level playing field
2006-09-14 08:23:47 PM  
Blues_X: /can I be so pissed off at my government, so often, that I become numb to the anger?

you? They're counting on it!
2006-09-14 08:23:49 PM  
What is odd here is that the report was ordered destroyed.

Not a Top Secret file, but a report on media ownership.

How many government studies get destroyed? While there are big shredding sessions of secret documents, reports to the FCC aren't usually sent to the chopping block like this.

This isn't a normal occurrance, and it points to something a wee bit hinkey towards the head of the FCC...
2006-09-14 08:25:00 PM  
As if Noam Chomsky hasn't been going on about this decades. But he's been happily labeled a wacko by people who aren't qualified to carry his brief case so. Enjoy the fruits of ignorance.
2006-09-14 08:27:46 PM  
Urmuf Hamer: five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts over, say , a half hour broadcast is ~15% more

15 percent more crap is still crap. For anything deeper than the bullet-points, your best bet is to read the paper or go looking around online - and smart broadcasters are putting their lengthier material online. Which renders that study even more pointless.

Besides, the TV news hole wouldn't magically expand by five and a half minutes over half an hour. Maybe they remove a 30-second spot from the evening news, maybe there's a couple extra 60-second updates here and there through the day, and that comes to an extra five and a half - but it's still the same superficial pap, just more of it.

Instead of 10 pounds of shiat crammed into a 5 pound bag, you get 12 pounds of shiat crammed into a 6 pound bag. Such a deal...
2006-09-14 08:28:16 PM  
Sooo... FCC goes ga-ga over obscenities and raise fines to absolutely absurd levels all because nutjobs can't control their children's viewing habbits *cough* . Then they waste taxes on valid reports citing the faulty logic behind huge corporate media giants? Soo... they make huge sums of money from these media companies by fining them, then give them the "OK" to become bigger and more widespread. This seems like some sorta money making scheme, not regulation.
2006-09-14 08:29:05 PM  
2006-09-14 08:29:35 PM  
h to the 'ojo: What would happen if some states elected to withdraw from the union?

I'd wager it would be something akin to the last time a number of states declared themselves an independant sovereign nation. Maybe you heard about this? A bunch of states got together, wrote a constitution, appointed a president and declared independance from the government of Washington DC, setting up their own capital in Richmond, Virginia.
2006-09-14 08:30:07 PM  
The Clinton administration used to use the same kind of tactics. You extremists on both ends are to busy pointing the finger at the other guy to notice that both sides are playing the same game.

/extremists suck arse.
2006-09-14 08:36:38 PM  
Yea, Bush's EPA does this all the time too. I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find an agency under the executive branch that doesn't do this sort of thing these days.

You folks just catching on?
2006-09-14 08:38:08 PM  
WipeHandsOnPants: The Clinton administration used to use the same kind of tactics.

Like when? And was the intent of these tactics to eliminate any regulation that prevents the consolidation of media power?
2006-09-14 08:38:31 PM  
"setting up their own capital in Richmond, Virginia."

That was actually the second capital. My mistake.
2006-09-14 08:39:53 PM  

The Clinton administration used to use the same kind of tactics.

reference please, or retract it.
2006-09-14 08:39:54 PM  
""It is utterly irresponsible and atrocious for NBC to air this vulgar language during the safe harbor time when millions of children were in the viewing audience...." said L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC."

Um... Safe Harbor starts at 10pm and ends at 6am. That is when children are NOT supposed to be watching. These people are so clueless. They bother me.
2006-09-14 08:41:32 PM  

Yes, but the reason for their secession was to defend an institution universally abhorred in the civilized world.

It's a bit harder to fight an anti-separatist war without slavery complicating things.
2006-09-14 08:42:57 PM  

This isn't a normal occurrance, and it points to something a wee bit hinkey towards the head of the FCC...

maybe not a normal occurence at the FCC (but know would know?)

but this is standard operating procedure for the Bush administration. The single defining feature of this group is tell what I have already decided, or pick up your vacation pay your way out.
2006-09-14 08:43:32 PM  
who whould know.

(duh. have a case of teh dumb)
2006-09-14 08:45:11 PM  
birdboy2000: Yes, but the reason for their secession was to defend an institution universally abhorred in the civilized world.

Actually, the various motives behind the South's secession are one of the longest-debated issues in American history. Among those who actually study the history of the conflict, the divide is considered to have been much more about states' rights and the culture of the south than about the institution of slavery. Many southerners either didn't own any slaves or didn't support the practice.

In other words, they, too, thought that they were just defending their rights.

/end threadjack
2006-09-14 08:45:53 PM  
birdboy2000: Yes, but the reason for their secession was to defend an institution universally abhorred in the civilized world.

Historically speaking, there were far more complicated reasons for the civil war than just slavery.

/Just saying
2006-09-14 08:46:16 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

1984 tag?
2006-09-14 08:50:03 PM  
Anyone thinking Bush is good for America is pretty much of an idiot at this point.
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.