
FCC Moves to End TV-Newspaper Ownership Ban - anigbrowl
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/fcc-s-pai-sets-nov-16-vote-on-lifting-media-ownership-limits
======
purplezooey
One thing I found out the other day is that Sinclair actually gives right wing
"talking point" snippets to its local news stations called "must runs"! Wtf?

[https://nyti.ms/2ra6y15](https://nyti.ms/2ra6y15)

~~~
mejin
Sinclair owns those companies. How is that any different than, let's say cnn,
telling it's reporters what they can report on? I think it's bad that 6
corporations own 90% of the media, but until this changes don't expect the
owners of those corporations to not inject their (left or right) bias to those
stations.

~~~
krastanov
Most reputable news sources claim to have a "firewall" between owners and
editors/journalists, i.e. they claim the owners can not tell the reporters
what to do. While it is fair to be somewhat jaded, organizations like NPR and
NYT uphold this ideal most of the time. (NPR being publicly funded is a
weirder case)

~~~
dogruck
Note that NPR gets much of its funding from underwriting agreements (aka
commercials). It's not accurate to describe NPR as "publicly funded."

Also, I think it is naive to claim that the NYT manages to achieve some holy
grail of independence from its ownership. Remember that this is the
organization that recently eliminated their fairly short-lived position of
Public Editor.

------
ozaark
This just in: Current FCC siding with corporations in the name of (but
without) consumer interest.

Not great that every decision coming out of the FCC regulatory body as of late
is beneficial to a small group of companies.

~~~
beedogs
Not great but not surprising. This is just what late-stage capitalism looks
like.

~~~
ozaark
AKA regulatory capture

------
faster
Best case, this will make the media even more mediocre, as demonstrated by
Clear Channel when the FCC killed the radio station ownership cap.

The worst case is more likely, unfortunately. Echo chambers will get louder
and influence their believers even more. Information will be replaced with
entertainment and propaganda. In other words, more of the worst of what we
have now.

~~~
ifhd
It will actually make them far more effective at what the republicans want.
More consolidation, more takeover by conservative news agencies.

This is a calculated and malicious move.

~~~
jameskegel
Please don't do this here.

~~~
ajross
You have a non-partisan read on what happened here, then? I mean, sorry: this
is an inherently political news story and discussing it without reference to
politics just isn't going to be productive.

~~~
rayiner
Non-partisan read is that in a world where radio stations and newspapers are
irrelevant, it’s a waste of everyone’s time to have these regulations.

Also, consolidation is a cross-cutting economic problem the DOJ’s antitrust
division should be handling. It’s outside the FCC’s expertise.

~~~
linkregister
The FCC's mandate is to regulate communication, how is radio communication
ownership outside of its jurisdiction?

Radio and television are extremely relevant to most Americans. It's only those
of us in our Bay Area-Chicago-New York bubbles that think they aren't.
Decreasing market share does not mean irrelevance.

Radio alone is extremely influential for political opinions. Many politicians
owe their careers to Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz.

Curated news stories that omit one perspective will certainly influence their
audiences: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-20/the-
sincl...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-20/the-sinclair-
revolution-will-be-televised-it-ll-just-have-low-production-values)

~~~
rayiner
> The FCC's mandate is to regulate communication, how is radio communication
> ownership outside of its jurisdiction?

In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's
jurisdition. The FCC's legitimate purpose is to prevent interference among
radio and TV stations. It's not to regulate content (which isn't a legitimate
area of regulation at all). And it's not to enforce antitrust laws (which are
enforced by a different government agency, with specific expertise in
antitrust).

The fact that radio is influential in politics among a certain segment of the
population is even more reason for the FCC to steer clear, not a reason for
the FCC to intervene.

~~~
ajross
How is changing existing regulations in the favor of a specific partisan group
"steering clear" of that group? That's downright Orwellian phrasing there.

~~~
rayiner
Regulating an area (ownership of TV and radio stations), because the FCC
worried about how the ownership will affect _viewpoints expressed_ by those
radio and TV stations, is not a legitimate exercise of the FCC’s authority
(or, for that matter, any government agency’s authority). Getting rid of those
regulations is “steering clear” of the problem created by exercising the FCC’s
licensing authority as a means for influencing viewpoints expressed in the
media.

The fact that getting rid of hose regulations might help any particular group
is besides the point. To the extent that those regulations were based on an
attempt to influence viewpoints, they were not legitimate to begin with.

------
th0ma5
I both want to say this is bad, but also want to believe that like in Citizen
Kane, owning a megaphone doesn't automatically equate to being able to control
the narrative. But I'm also scared it does.

~~~
manicdee
Just look at Queensland, Australia. The public discourse is basically owned by
Murdoch, and the population is far more right-wing than the rest of the
country.

~~~
orangecat
_The public discourse is basically owned by Murdoch, and the population is far
more right-wing than the rest of the country._

The latter could easily be more of a cause of the former than vice versa.

------
eecc
Right, someone can point the commission to the Italian experience with
Berlusconi - tv, paper and publishing baron - and his toxic effect on Italian
society

------
JustSomeNobody
> "If you believe, as I do, that the federal government has no business
> intervening in the news, then we must stop the federal government from
> intervening in the news business,” Pai said...

But... this isn't about that. We're eventually going to reach a media
(internet, tv, news, etc) singularity. How is that good for _anyone_ except
investors?

~~~
tertius
As long as competition is not outlawed.

~~~
wavefunction
haha

------
shmerl
In normal countries, Pai would have been in jail for all the damage he is
causing through his corruption.

~~~
linkregister
What corruption are you talking about? I abhor his policies, but I haven't
heard of any bribery or other illegal practices.

~~~
shmerl
Normal person would not support monopolies. Shills do it for money or whatever
other bribes they get. The whole process of monopolists controlling various
branches of power is the prime example of corruption. Except in US, this
corruption is legalized, under pretense that it's "free speech".

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

When you get cases like this: [http://stopthecap.com/2017/10/23/mich-lawmaker-
seeks-ban-com...](http://stopthecap.com/2017/10/23/mich-lawmaker-seeks-ban-
community-broadband-networks-blocks-stop-cap/)

you can observe it very clearly. Pai is even worse, because he isn't an
elected official.

~~~
linkregister
I fail to see how those sources show that Pai is engaging in corruption.

It sounds like you're saying, "I don't like what he does, so he must be
getting bribes."

I think he is doing great damage, and that Congress needs to step in and
codify into law what he is rolling back. That said, bizarre claims only serve
to weaken the position that we share: that the FCC is serving industry at the
expense of the public good and consumers.

~~~
shmerl
Corruption here is pretty obvious. Check his ties to those he is supposedly
"regulating". In this particular case, John Oliver's analogy about a dingo is
very to the point.

Current Congress won't step in, because of exactly same corruption going on.
Current majority supports this insanity.

~~~
linkregister
You keep referencing things you expect to be familiar, but they’re not. What
John Oliver said once isn’t widely known.

It’s not obvious. Why would I check? You have to support your position. Right
now you continue to weaken opposition to Pai’s actions by appearing that you
aren’t being logical.

~~~
shmerl
So, search is a few keystrokes away, I doubt you didn't find anything.

Anyway, about Pai's ties to monopolistic ISPs, there was a lot published here:
[https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=Pai](https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=Pai)

~~~
linkregister
Someone having ties to companies is equivalent to corruption?

I'm not doing free research, you're going to have to mention one example of
corruption.

------
disposition2
Maybe it is because I was born before the internet was really used but I can't
understand tha position of this is okay because we have new technologies that
would allow for local news to still be viable without the people reporting it
having any near geographical location to whom they are reporting to.

While somewhat true, it seems like a strawman argument seen through rose
colored glasses and this is not what will happen. Consolidation will continue
and the only local news you'll probably get is what X corporation wants to
supply you with. And you can not use the argument of 'free-market, vote with
your wallet / consumption, switch to their competitor' because chances are
there isn't one.

------
burntrelish1273
Xenomorph clown-toothed Ajit Pai helping corporations again... surprise,
surprise.

------
meatsock
this has made participating in public media much more important.

------
matt_wulfeck
Internet has made both over the air TV and printed newspapers fairly weak. I’m
not so sad to see the regulations go.

~~~
untog
It really hasn't. With younger generations, sure. But a _lot_ of people watch
local news. For many older generations it's their main source of news. And
they vote in much higher numbers than young voters.

~~~
Johnny555
Not just old people, but also less educated people... some might call them
"rednecks". My brother, for example, still gets nearly all of his news from TV
news and the newspaper. He has a flip-phone rather than a smart phone, and
avoids the internet almost entirely (using it only for suppliers that require
internet ordering).

He's relatively uneducated, having only a high school diploma (and he barely
got that) but he's also quite successful, running a business doing specialized
repairs to heavy construction equipment with a revenue over a million
dollars/year.

And he's a die-hard republican who thinks Trump is just what this country
needs.

