6 ms·

It will actually make them far more effective at what the republicans want. More consolidation, more takeover by conservative news agencies. This is a calculat

by ifhd 9y ago

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 9y ago
Please don't do this here.
- ajross 9y ago
  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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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-sinclair-revolution-will-be-televised-it-ll-just-have-low-production-values https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-20/the-sincl...
      - rayiner 9y ago
        > 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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        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.
        learc83 9y ago
        >In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's jurisdition. If the NTSB licensed trucks, and there was only enough road space to license 100 trucks per city, I'd be perfectly fine if they decided that 50/100 trucks had to be locally owned. Usable radio frequencies are a limited resource, we have a vested interest in allocating those resources efficiently and fairly. The argument is what constitutes efficiently and fairly. Is it fair to award licenses to the highest bidder? How about the tallest station owner? Regardless of how they allocate licenses, they are still making a choice that determines who gets access and what viewpoints are represented. I see no intrinsic reason that "highest bidder" is any more fair than "lives within 100 miles of the radio station."
    - learc83 9y ago
      How are radio stations irrelevant? Nearly everyone I know with a 9 to 5 job listens to talk radio on the way to work. Either WSB for conservatives, or NPR for liberals. Conservative talk radio in particular plays a huge part in conservative political culture.
- rodgerd 9y ago
  Do what? Note that this is an accurate description of the media landscape in other English-speaking countries which have chosen to relax cross-ownership rules.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  I get why you say this, but it matters for business. Good luck when the local network provider/media cartel decides they don’t like you.
- cooper12 9y ago
  Back in March, 265 members of congress voted to reverse an FCC privacy rule [0] in exchange for bribes (whoops, it's called lobbying). I'll leave it to you to figure out whether they had a "D" or an "R" next to their name. Then after that, tell me with a straight face that this isn't a partisan issue or that both sides are just the same. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I get that you want to avoid political flamewars, but sticking your head in the sand about why things are happening as they are doesn't help anyone.
weirdstuff 9y ago
Rhetorical question: are republicans really alone in this?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Pretty much. Democrats do identity politics. The GOP needs flood media in cheap places with pivot issues (guns, abortion, etc).
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    Pretty sure Trump does identity politics. Examples are claiming the NFL protests are about disrespecting the flag, comments about Mexicans, a lot of shots at China, etc.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Trump != GOP. He is a game show host and parasite. The base voters who show up are people who value specific issues like abortion, taxes, guns, etc and a red line that cannot be crossed. Compare that message to the gotv efforts for democratic candidates. They’ll target ethnic voters, women, unions, lgbt, etc with messages specific to them. Depending on where they are, Democrats will stay silent on abortion or guns. It’s a big reason why voter suppression is such a priority for the GOP. When there aren’t enough old white people, it’s expensive and difficult to convince gays or African Americans to flip. I live in a very democratic state, and my little city probably has 30 polling places open from 6am to 9pm on Election Day with hardly any wait time.
      - ifhd 9y ago
        Trump is 100% GOP. You don't vote for him in the primary and general elections then get to claim "oh, he doesn't represent us really".
        apocalyptic0n3 9y ago
        And yet, I know a half dozen people doing just that right now. :/
marcoperaza 9y ago
What world are you living in? There is one conservative tv network in the US, and five left-wing networks.
- PretzelFisch 9y ago
  There is the Sinclair Broadcast Group they own many small stations and will benefit from this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
- ifhd 9y ago
  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group They have been buying up local stations for years. They then use that influence to push conservative ideas.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Do you find it the least bit ironic that you learned that from a admittedly liberal talk show host who's videos are pushed on YouTube while conservatives who create similar content are demonetized?
gozur88 9y ago
It's hard to look at the current media landscape and think the big problem is takeover by conservative news agencies.

by ifhd 9y ago

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 9y ago

Please don't do this here.

ajross 9y ago
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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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-sinclair-revolution-will-be-televised-it-ll-just-have-low-production-values https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-20/the-sincl...
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > 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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        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.
      - learc83 9y ago
        >In the same way consolidation among trucking companies is outside the NTSB's jurisdition. If the NTSB licensed trucks, and there was only enough road space to license 100 trucks per city, I'd be perfectly fine if they decided that 50/100 trucks had to be locally owned. Usable radio frequencies are a limited resource, we have a vested interest in allocating those resources efficiently and fairly. The argument is what constitutes efficiently and fairly. Is it fair to award licenses to the highest bidder? How about the tallest station owner? Regardless of how they allocate licenses, they are still making a choice that determines who gets access and what viewpoints are represented. I see no intrinsic reason that "highest bidder" is any more fair than "lives within 100 miles of the radio station."
  - learc83 9y ago
    How are radio stations irrelevant? Nearly everyone I know with a 9 to 5 job listens to talk radio on the way to work. Either WSB for conservatives, or NPR for liberals. Conservative talk radio in particular plays a huge part in conservative political culture.
rodgerd 9y ago
Do what? Note that this is an accurate description of the media landscape in other English-speaking countries which have chosen to relax cross-ownership rules.
Spooky23 9y ago
I get why you say this, but it matters for business. Good luck when the local network provider/media cartel decides they don’t like you.
cooper12 9y ago
Back in March, 265 members of congress voted to reverse an FCC privacy rule [0] in exchange for bribes (whoops, it's called lobbying). I'll leave it to you to figure out whether they had a "D" or an "R" next to their name. Then after that, tell me with a straight face that this isn't a partisan issue or that both sides are just the same. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I get that you want to avoid political flamewars, but sticking your head in the sand about why things are happening as they are doesn't help anyone.

weirdstuff 9y ago

Rhetorical question: are republicans really alone in this?

Spooky23 9y ago
Pretty much. Democrats do identity politics. The GOP needs flood media in cheap places with pivot issues (guns, abortion, etc).
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Pretty sure Trump does identity politics. Examples are claiming the NFL protests are about disrespecting the flag, comments about Mexicans, a lot of shots at China, etc.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Trump != GOP. He is a game show host and parasite. The base voters who show up are people who value specific issues like abortion, taxes, guns, etc and a red line that cannot be crossed. Compare that message to the gotv efforts for democratic candidates. They’ll target ethnic voters, women, unions, lgbt, etc with messages specific to them. Depending on where they are, Democrats will stay silent on abortion or guns. It’s a big reason why voter suppression is such a priority for the GOP. When there aren’t enough old white people, it’s expensive and difficult to convince gays or African Americans to flip. I live in a very democratic state, and my little city probably has 30 polling places open from 6am to 9pm on Election Day with hardly any wait time.
    - ifhd 9y ago
      Trump is 100% GOP. You don't vote for him in the primary and general elections then get to claim "oh, he doesn't represent us really".
      - apocalyptic0n3 9y ago
        And yet, I know a half dozen people doing just that right now. :/

marcoperaza 9y ago

What world are you living in? There is one conservative tv network in the US, and five left-wing networks.

PretzelFisch 9y ago
There is the Sinclair Broadcast Group they own many small stations and will benefit from this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
ifhd 9y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group They have been buying up local stations for years. They then use that influence to push conservative ideas.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Do you find it the least bit ironic that you learned that from a admittedly liberal talk show host who's videos are pushed on YouTube while conservatives who create similar content are demonetized?

gozur88 9y ago

It's hard to look at the current media landscape and think the big problem is takeover by conservative news agencies.