
The FCC has repealed a 42-year-old rule blocking broadcast media mergers - uptown
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/16/the-fcc-just-repealed-decades-old-rules-blocking-broadcast-media-mergers/
======
ABCLAW
>In his remarks Thursday, Pai said it was “utter nonsense” that his agency's
decisions on media ownership would lead to a company dominating local media
markets by buying up newspapers and radio stations.

>“It will open the door to pro-competitive combinations that will strengthen
local voices,” he said, and “better serve local communities.”

How?

I'm not quite sure how the combination of a more consolidated industry and the
removal of local studios results in stronger local voices.

~~~
redler
The use of words and phrases like "utter nonsense", or "absurd", or "it's
offensive to even suggest..." is rampant in Trump administration officials'
hyper-defensive interactions with the public -- especially if there's even the
slightest adversarial questioning of policy elements on merit. It's like some
sort of winking signal that rational discourse is no longer to be tolerated. I
don't know if this is somehow coordinated, these administrators all have chips
on their shoulders, or they're simply following the model.

~~~
forapurpose
I think it's an important point, but I think it extends far beyond and
predates the Trump administration.

It happens all over the political spectrum to a degree, but the GOP and its
supporters have really embraced it and have been using that kind of rhetoric
for a long time (and it's worked very well for them in terms of framing and
dominating debate): Consider talk radio, such as Limbaugh, which goes back to
the 1980s or early 90s; Fox News hosts, such as O'Reilly and Hannity; and the
Wall St Journal opinion pages. Look at the rhetoric used by Cheney and
Rumsfeld in the Bush administration, or, for a specific example, the GOP
congressman who yelled 'you lie' during an Obama State of the Union speech.
Over-the-top, hyper-aggressive attacks on the other side is their common
rhetorical tactic; they are demonstrations of aggression, for their supporters
and for anyone who might disagree. (That's not meant to be partisan; I believe
those are the facts and it would be false to say the politically correct
thing, 'everyone does it equally':)

It's much broader than politics too. It's in reality TV, but by far the
biggest example is Internet discussion boards. It's a continuing problem on
HN, though my impression is that it's improved significantly here (thank
goodness!). Certainly that predates Trump!

It's an obvious tactic in an argument: Act so aggressively and angrily that
the other side is intimidated, and at worst no serious discussion is possible.
It ends the discussion.

~~~
cpeterso
Consider The Onion's 2013 Point/Counterpoint article on the Iraq War:

* Point: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

* Counterpoint: No it won't. It just won't. None of that will happen. You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

[https://www.theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-
entir...](https://www.theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-
mideast-region-and-1819594296)

~~~
hexane360
That article was from 2003, not 2013.

------
dmode
This rule was repealed for one and one purpose only. Allow Sinclair Media, a
pro-Trump media organization, to buy up local TV stations and blast propaganda
news during your 9'o'clock news hour. Here's a great article covering the
motivations of Sinclair. It is time to fight back and get rid of Ajit Pai

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-
conserv...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-
tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html)

~~~
meri_dian
If a media outlet wants to buy stations and supply more conservative friendly
news, how is that any different from Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and
supplying liberal friendly news?

For those who would want to counter that buying many local stations outweighs
buying a single outlet in the Washington Post, I would bet WaPo reaches as
many or more people as all local stations put together in the US through their
massive social media and generally online presence. Not only that, while local
stations only air news at a set time each day, WaPo articles are persistent
and ubiquitous.

The scale of outreach and influence for a site like WaPo is really tremendous
when you think about it.

~~~
eropple
One: you have a long row to hoe before asserting that the Washington Post
supplies "liberal-friendly news." They may (I would say _do_ ) have a
moderately liberal-friendly editorial board. Much as the WSJ may (and again, I
would say _does_ ) have an extremely conservative-friendly editorial board. To
conflate the editorial board and _reporting_ is, frankly, either disingenuous
or bordering on it.

Two: you have an even longer row to hoe to tie together buying _one_ paper and
buying _as many TV stations as one can to blanket an area_. We all know about
what Sinclair's up to--given the levels of handwringing put out by the folks
on Pai's side of the aisle about the (non-existent, but whatever) suppression
of right-wing speech, maybe the notion of choking off differing voices under
the Sinclair umbrella rings just a little bit hollow?

~~~
meri_dian
See my edit.

When you dismiss suppression of conservative positions, I say that I would be
shocked if I ever saw a liberal outlet advocate or even try to reason about
the case against Sanctuary Cities.

It's an example of suppression because if I even tried to bring up the debate
I would be ridiculed and accused of being a racist. We can't debate the issue,
and so anyone who would want to advocate for such a position is suppressed.

~~~
Spooky23
My local paper, a Hearst rag, did that.

There’s a balance between state and local rights and laws and federal law. My
city has an obligation to enforce local law and isn’t responsible for the
shitshow of Federal immigration policy.

By meddling in federal matters, local police poison their relationship with
the populace and become less effective.

The conservative position on this topic is strange, as they generally resist
federal meddling.

~~~
JBlue42
The conservative position on this topic is strange, as they generally resist
federal meddling...unless it benefits their agenda

~~~
masklinn
It's not exactly new, and hangs in blinking neon signs over the runup to the
civil war.

------
aaronbrethorst
_A major beneficiary of the deregulatory moves, analysts say, is Sinclair, a
conservative broadcasting company that is seeking to buy up Tribune Media for
$3.9 billion._

Sinclair requires its TV stations to air segments with a conservative bent:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-
broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html)

Edit: Check out John Oliver's segment on this topic.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc)

~~~
bduerst
The best part of that is when Sinclair's _Terrorism Alert Desk_ ran a piece
about burkinis. They require all their stations to broadcast it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc&feature=youtu.be&t=15m47s)

------
not_that_noob
The ghosts of Pulitzer and Hearst thank you -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish–Amer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish–American_War#Hearst_and_Pulitzer)

------
js2
The conclusion of this paper from 2001 supports revoking the rules, or at
least that the rules aren’t necessary for their stated goal of providing
diverse opinions:

"A Tale of Three Cities: “Diverse and Antagonistic” Information in Situations
of Local Newspaper/ Broadcast Cross-Ownership"

[http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...](http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=fclj)

From the conclusion:

 _This Article examined whether three existing newspaper /broadcast
combinations in major markets provided information about the 2000 presidential
campaign from "diverse and antagonistic sources." The results show clearly
that they did provide a wide range of diverse information. In other words, the
Commission's historical assumption that media ownership inevitably shapes the
news to suit its own interests may no longer be true (if it ever was).

The September 2001 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking demonstrated the Commission's
interest in solid empirical evidence about newspaper/broadcast combinations.
The evidence of the study reported in this Article suggests that the
prohibition on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership has outlived its
usefulness._

~~~
eonst430eoan
> The conclusion of this paper from 2001 supports revoking the rules, or at
> least that the rules aren’t necessary for their stated goal of providing
> diverse opinions

Hmm... From reading your quote, it sounds to me like it's saying that the
rules are working properly. What these changes are going to allow is a single
company with a known one-sided agenda to buy up _all_ media in several
markets. How will that work out?

~~~
js2
The study looked at three cities where the newspaper and radio station were
owned by the same company (“cross-ownership”), due to having been
grandfathered in when the FCC rule was created in 1975.

The FCC revoked multiple rules, but one of those prevented cross-ownership.
The stated goal of all of the rules was to encourage a diversity of views. At
least with respect to the cross-ownership rule, this study found it wasn’t
necessary for a diversity of views to exist.

------
cletus
So:

> One long-standing rule repealed Thursday prevented one company in a given
> media market from owning both a daily newspaper and a TV station

> Another rule blocked TV stations in the same market from merging with each
> other if the combination would leave fewer than eight independently owned
> stations

> The agency also took aim at rules restricting the number of TV and radio
> stations that any media company could simultaneously own in a single market.

Now, let me first say that Trump and Ajit Pal have been, are and will be a
disaster for media and broadband regulation. That out of the way, let me say
this:

These rules were crafted in an era when we had:

\- Local newspapers

\- A limited number of more broadly distributed papers (state, national)

\- 3 Broadcast TV networks (4 including PBS) where local stations were
affiliates.

\- The importance of radio for entertainment and news

\- Limited market penetration of cable TV and far less channels and content
choice than we have today

So compare that to today:

\- We can have a virtually unlimited number of TV channels through cable and
the Internet

\- Radio has a vastly greater array of options through satellite radio (eg
Sirius) and the Internet (eg podcasts)

\- Newspapers are a dying breed, replaced with online news distribution.

\- The barrier to entry to creating, promoting and getting an audience for,
say, a local issue blog is comparatively cheap now. Previously it either
wasn't possible or was orders of magnitude more difficult.

So it would be foolish to say the the media landscape hasn't changed
drastically in 40 years.

Now the devil is in the details here. So if there can be less than 8
independent stations in a market, how many can there be? 6? 4? 3? 2? Because
there's a difference.

Honestly there's far more scandalous and outright dangerous things to get
outraged about with this administration.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Radio has a vastly greater array of options through satellite radio (eg
> Sirius)

Satellite radio is _one_ provider since the XM/Sirius merger. Broadcast radio
is vastly more consolidated in ownership and in operation within each of the
small number of ownership groups.

Radio may provide a greater _illusion_ of choice with more stations in the
dial, but there is less _actual_ diversity in control.

~~~
hysthola
The rationale that seems to be put forth now is that there's so much
competition between mediums that it's ok to allow monopolies of each one of
them.

I think this is absurd of course, but that's the argument that's always made
implicitly or explicitly.

It's also scary as hell because ISPs have disproportionate control.

And once they're granted all sorts of freedoms to screw over consumers, it's
going to be a lot more difficult to take it away from them.

All Pai has to do is set the ball rolling and it won't stop.

I don't really see a political landscape in the near future where you have
anti-monopoly laws being enforced. All the current corporate monopoly whores
will have to die of old age first.

------
Qw3r7
Someone needs to go wake up Teddy Roosevelt. As rude as it would be to wake
him up, we need someone to recognise that the amount of consolidation the
country is reaching is incredibly dangerous. This teetering near Deus Ex level
amounts of consolidation. Yes, the current aims at Google and Facebook are
nice to see. But, the deregulation of media companies is allowing anti-
consumer practices. Even the video game industry is starting to receive
backlash for its "non-gambling" practices and the lootbox.

Pardon for the rant, that kind of seems everywhere. But, allowing something
like this to form is dangerous, especially with how strong lobbying is now.
With facebook actively suppressing certain ideologies, the soon to be larger
media companies will now have no issue writing off conflicting ideas as well.

~~~
spaceseaman
I completely agree with you, however I find this bit a little mysterious:

> With facebook actively suppressing certain ideologies

The only ideologies I've heard of Facebook suppressing lately are Neo-Nazi and
alt-right groups following the Charlottesville stuff. I don't take issue with
these ideologies being suppressed.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Apparently so because someone just went through my history and down-
voted all my comments...

~~~
Qw3r7
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Suppression of opinion implicitly violates the Bill of Rights.

~~~
spaceseaman
I do not consider Nazi ideology an opinion. Their ideas are purely based on
maintaining a power dynamic. There's no logic or legitimacy to their ideas,
and thus they are not opinions. They change the ideology as needed to maintain
power and promote their own strength.

For a historical viewpoint, simply look at how often the German Nazi party
would change what classifies as being a Jew or "undesirable". It was only ever
about putting fear into people and maintaining control. They had no real
opinions on why these people were undesirable - those could be made up after
the fact.

If Nazism was an opinion, I would be willing to defend it. But it's not, and
it thrives when it's given the legitimacy as such.

EDIT: To try and tie this back to the topic at hand, are blatant lies still
"opinions"? What about death threats and hate speech? My point is simply that
we already make distinctions about what kind of speech is free, so I feel that
Facebook instituting policies that align with these existing rules makes sense
- even though I feel that they are becoming too large to be the de-facto
source for information on the Internet.

~~~
thisacctforreal
Friendly reminder that downvotes should be reserved for comments you don't
want to see on the site, not for comments you disagree with.

~~~
nl
Friendly reminder that PG said the opposite.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

------
shmerl
FCC working for monopolists - that's already not news. How can this garbage be
stopped though? It's like the sickest plutocracy in the works.

~~~
dragonwriter
There's a political party that has stated opposition to this kind for
consolidation and resisted industry pressure to remove this regulation, and
one which has stated it's support for this kind of deregulation and actively
pursued it.

There's times when the relationship between public posturing, voting, and
policy results in murky and opaque, but this isn't one of them.

~~~
shmerl
_> There's a political party that has stated opposition to this kind for
consolidation_

Someone like the Pirate Party? It never made it in US somehow.

And for the reference, previous FCC approved Charter + TWC merger, despite
being better in general than the current horror.

------
SN76477
this is in line with the current republican structure. they want to dismantle
any regulations, minimize government and let the pieces fall where they may.

The problem is that this isnt the 1850s anymore.

~~~
ikiris
Make America Gilded Again

------
Lev1a
"greater consolidation" == "easier establishment of monopolies" (probably)

------
truxus
Don't you think it's about time we removed all the unnessecary independent
voices from media so we can stop confusing people? The Russians and Chinese
are doing it; we need to catch up - we've got to have unity in our messages.
/Sarcasm

------
beedogs
Another horrible idea from the worst Administration any of us will ever live
through.

------
Friedduck
It’s a perfect storm. Kill net neutrality and then restrictions preventing
local media monopolies.

People have been manipulated by their chosen media like no other time in
history, and I can’t see where we go from here.

Enterprises will have the singular ability to control what vast swaths of the
populace hears and believes. At best it’s a continuance of recent trends, and
at worst the failure of the republic.

------
sodosopa
Those fuckers are gonna kill the web, aren't they?

------
rayiner
Non-paywall article here: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-media-
regulation/u-s-r...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-media-
regulation/u-s-regulator-votes-to-loosen-media-ownership-rules-idUSKBN1DG2R9).

In my view, the media ownership rules were indefensible. _First,_ they were
not driven by the sort of legitimate economic concerns that usually drive
anti-consolidation efforts. They were not (at least, not primarily) justified,
for example, on the basis of media companies being able to exercise market
power to charge too much for advertising. Instead, they were justified by the
government's desire to influence the content of media. A well meaning desire,
perhaps, but still a fundamentally illegitimate exercise of government power.

 _Second_ , the broadcasting-license tail was wagging the merger dog. The
FCC's purpose is to address the "tragedy of the commons" that might result if
people could use public broadcast frequencies freely without concern for
others. It's not an antitrust agency, and has no expertise in that area. It
has overextended its authority over broadcasting licenses to exercise control
over mergers in industries it has no jurisdiction over (in this case,
newspapers).

~~~
jnordwick
This is a very underrated comment.

The second point, that the FCC is not the correct body, was something I had
never thought of before. Why is the FCC trying to make anti-trust rules? The
FDA doesn't make anti-trust rules for companies it oversees.

~~~
makomk
Curiously enough, one of the other controversies in the news right now is the
DOJ - which normally enforces anti-trust rules - supposedly telling AOL that
they'd have to sell off either Turner Broadcasting or DirecTV if they wanted
to merge with Time Warner due to competition concerns. Apparently this was an
evil attack by Trump on the media, nothing whatsoever to do with the issues
caused by one company owning both a major pay TV provider and a major provider
of content.

------
liveoneggs
cox communications must be salivating to finish dominance on the atlanta
market

------
campuscodi
Pai should be in jail. This is absurd. The guy is lying to everyone's face
from a government function. When has ever a consolidation not lead to a
monopoly and when has a monopoly not been abused?

------
Top19
I hate mergers and think they’re dumb, but maybe this is for the best. Isn’t
the problem with internet news is that it comes from everywhere, enforcing a
kind of chaos of truth and a race to the bottom? Maybe we should have near
monopolies in media, so that a certain laziness pervades and people don’t care
about ratings?

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
I upvoted you not because I agree (or disagree) with you, but because I think
you politely presented a well-reasoned opinion and shouldn't be in the grey.

~~~
thephyber
I didn't downvote, but I don't see it as well reasoned. It's essentially the
"two wrongs make a right" fallacy[1]. In this case, increased media
consolidation has nothing to with how fake internet news is.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that further media consolidation will move us
further from low-bias information sources and towards more MSNBC / FoxNews
extreme partisan news sources. It will likely continue the convergence of
entertainment and journalism which only serves to dilute the little media
literacy that we still have in the USA.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right)

------
JumpCrisscross
The political mood on media regulation has shifted, at least from where I sit,
in the the past weeks. Twitter blew its hearing. Facebook and Google failed to
salve the wound by sending deputies.

The belief I'm sensing is that the only way to check these companies is
through competition from traditional media, including ISPs. If Google and
Facebook and Twitter are running roughshod with our data, this thinking goes,
maybe the solution is letting others challenge their data monopoly.

You and I see the problem with this. It's harder to evade Comcast than Google
or Facebook. But every day, that becomes less true. In any case, this is the
first step in Silicon Valley's price for what is broadly seen as its
arrogance.

~~~
jonny_eh
This is about local TV stations getting gobbled up by a single company,
Sinclair. I don't see what Twitter/FB/Google have to do with this.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I don 't see what Twitter/FB/Google have to do with this_

Why are "religious rights" and low taxes in the same envelope? Because they're
the same constituency. There is no underlying sense to it other than political
sense.

Media mergers of the kind Sinclair or TWC have pursued, or are pursuing, have
traditionally been argued against by Google _et al 's_ lobbyists. There just
isn't another organized constituency who cares about local radio. But the
precedents from local radio spilling into ISPs? Now there's a worry.

Those same lobbyists now represent politically wounded clients. When the cats
are away, the mice come out to play.

~~~
turndown
You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible
for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago?

Your entire premise is incredibly flawed; religious rights and low taxes may
be part of the same constituency, but opposition to media mergers is not a
strict left or right issue.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible
> for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago?_

So nobody who wasn't around when the Constitution was written can be
instrumental in defending it today?

> _opposition to media mergers is not a strict left or right issue_

Pardon me, I did not intend to imply it is. My point was in coalitions not
always have logical sets of views.

There is no organized coalition against local radio consolidation. For a
while, nobody bothered defeating it. Now Sinclair has. Opposition is needed.
Unfortunately, nobody cares about local radio. At least not enough to
organize.

The only ones defending the old rule--at least when it's come up in New York,
California or Arizona, or the limited D.C. circles I'm privy to--are companies
fearing its creep. The dominant constituency amongst those companies are the
tech majors.

