5 ms·

> On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The propo

> On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market. > Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said. Despair seems like an appropriate response here, but hardly useful. This is probably as bad for society as any of the changes to the net neutrality laws. Getting out into the streets, blacking out websites, commenting on the FCC site... those things are just meaningless it seems and weren't even a response to these last two pieces. How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? Shouldn't this constitutionally protected industry have its own set of anti-trust laws? In the Information Age, how can we be so careless about the management and structure of our core information distribution systems? Are there any movements to combat this and prevent more local papers and tv stations from becoming smaller delivery mechanisms for the same partisan bullshit?

tw04 9y ago
>In the Information Age, how can we be so careless about the management and structure of our core information distribution systems? Because, sadly enough, in this day and age the average American doesn't know and doesn't care. When the people who want this to pass are the people you get your information from, you walk away with a very, VERY different viewpoint than hearing from someone who doesn't have a horse in the race.
- gxs 9y ago
  Even if they cared, with modern surveillance do you think the government would ever allow anything other than a peaceful protest? I'm so cynical that any type of revolt, even moderately "violent", would be squashed before it ever had a chance to fully form. It truly is an interesting time. Initially, corporations were to have a definite lifespan (something like 70 years). Of course they got rid of that. Our system wasn't designed for corporate influence of this magnitude. Our forefathers were pretty smart dudes..I wonder how they'd change the constitution knowing what we know now.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Or would our forefathers be the monied interests taking advantages of these new structures? Many of the protections put in place especially benefit the economically well-off. Playing devil's advocate, possibly the most populist-friendly protection is the 2nd amendment, in that there's a school of thought that says escalating the conflict to put the pressure on the people pulling the trigger - rather than letting them just forcefully disband an unarmed protest - is what it would take to get the soldiers of the government to refuse to carry out death sentences against their fellow citizens. However, historically the US government has not been shy about coming down hard on armed resistance, so it's unclear that it is any real use. One of the more interesting (and either depressing or hopeful, depending on your perspective) lessons of a study of early American history is it's not some ideal period with no discontent and everything since has been decay. In many ways it's definitely better now. Human history, globally, is not pretty. Which isn't to say we should stop trying to improve, but important to recognize that it will, and has always, taken a lot of struggle.
kurthr 9y ago
It's OK. Just change the government (and FCC rules) later to force them to divest their holdings (at a loss). Eventually, they will learn that betting big on temporary political gains does not make business sense.
- fosco 9y ago
  has something similar ever happened in history? (serious question) I see every loss that occurs as a step back and no progress only side stepping afterwords...
  - coretx 9y ago
    Berlusconi, Italy. Not kidding.
- wtf_is_up 9y ago
  Did this happen after the Telecommunications Act of 1996? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
  - xellisx 9y ago
    I'm still pissed from that.
sithadmin 9y ago
>How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from government interference with speech. It has no bearing on the behaviors of private parties. FWIW I'm not taking a pro-monopoly stance here. Just think it's important to educate the public that the First Amendment is a lot more limited than the average American believes that it is.
- jaggednad 9y ago
  You’re right. I think we need further legislation to bring out the “true meaning of our creed”, as we did in generations past.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    which generation was that and what legislation are you referring to? reminds me of 15 year olds born after the PATRIOT ACT exclaiming "this isn't the America I grew up in"
    - whatshisface 9y ago
      Exponential curves have no "knee." There's no point in American history that you can point to as the inflection point of liberty. It just gets worse every year - except for the slices carved out by activists.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  It has happened before. Once upon a time railroad barons started collecting companies together. From that we got antitrust rules. Media owners are the modern railroad barons in that control over one asset (last-mile internet) grants them leverage over a great many others. To follow Herbert's "golden path" principal: we may need for it to get truly horrible for a generation or more before people stand up to say never again.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment Not true. While the First Amendment does provide many protections for free press and there are no national press shield laws, many states in the US provide additional free press protections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat... Please stop trying to hijack discussion of free speech and free press (both of which are human rights / social institutions that extend beyond the scope of protections provided via the court due to the First Amendment) into being discussions of the First Amendment in the name of "education".
pbkhrv 9y ago
> Are there any movements to combat this and prevent more local papers and tv stations from becoming smaller delivery mechanisms for the same partisan bullshit? Not sure about movements, but maybe build products and systems and infrastructure that would enable smaller newspapers and tv stations to make money while staying independent? Better crowdfunding, micropayments, better paywalls, better media distribution channels, tools for local communities to get involved? Bottom-up solutions like these are hard to implement, because they are decentralized and require an active base, but can be done.
CoffeeDregs 9y ago
While I disagree with a lot of what Pai is doing, this doesn't seem bad and actually seems to reflect reality: > On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate > the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV > station in a major market. This already exists. Newspapers are all now websites (basically), so CNN is effectively a newspaper/website that owns a TV station (or vice versa)... No significant newspaper is limited to a major market and I'm unsure of the benefit of a 42yo rule that has a limited relevance to our current reality. Under current regulations, BuzzFeed can buy WNBC in NYC but The NYTimes cannot? Unfortunately, Pai's logic seems to make some sense. > more than 39 percent of U.S. television households But the above 39% thing is totally baffling. From the Justice Department: > The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 > and 2,500 points to be moderately concentrated, and consider markets in > which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points to be highly concentrated. A Herfindahl-Hirschman Index including this one company (@ 40%) would be 1,600 (40%^2). That one company causes the market to be "moderately concentrated" and we're removing this limit. That's completely insane.
philamonster 9y ago
>How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? https://vine.co/v/hMiITBPJUlw https://vine.co/v/hMiITBPJUlw

tw04 9y ago

>In the Information Age, how can we be so careless about the management and structure of our core information distribution systems? Because, sadly enough, in this day and age the average American doesn't know and doesn't care. When the people who want this to pass are the people you get your information from, you walk away with a very, VERY different viewpoint than hearing from someone who doesn't have a horse in the race.

gxs 9y ago
Even if they cared, with modern surveillance do you think the government would ever allow anything other than a peaceful protest? I'm so cynical that any type of revolt, even moderately "violent", would be squashed before it ever had a chance to fully form. It truly is an interesting time. Initially, corporations were to have a definite lifespan (something like 70 years). Of course they got rid of that. Our system wasn't designed for corporate influence of this magnitude. Our forefathers were pretty smart dudes..I wonder how they'd change the constitution knowing what we know now.
- majormajor 9y ago
  Or would our forefathers be the monied interests taking advantages of these new structures? Many of the protections put in place especially benefit the economically well-off. Playing devil's advocate, possibly the most populist-friendly protection is the 2nd amendment, in that there's a school of thought that says escalating the conflict to put the pressure on the people pulling the trigger - rather than letting them just forcefully disband an unarmed protest - is what it would take to get the soldiers of the government to refuse to carry out death sentences against their fellow citizens. However, historically the US government has not been shy about coming down hard on armed resistance, so it's unclear that it is any real use. One of the more interesting (and either depressing or hopeful, depending on your perspective) lessons of a study of early American history is it's not some ideal period with no discontent and everything since has been decay. In many ways it's definitely better now. Human history, globally, is not pretty. Which isn't to say we should stop trying to improve, but important to recognize that it will, and has always, taken a lot of struggle.

kurthr 9y ago

It's OK. Just change the government (and FCC rules) later to force them to divest their holdings (at a loss). Eventually, they will learn that betting big on temporary political gains does not make business sense.

fosco 9y ago
has something similar ever happened in history? (serious question) I see every loss that occurs as a step back and no progress only side stepping afterwords...
- coretx 9y ago
  Berlusconi, Italy. Not kidding.
wtf_is_up 9y ago
Did this happen after the Telecommunications Act of 1996? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- xellisx 9y ago
  I'm still pissed from that.

sithadmin 9y ago

>How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from government interference with speech. It has no bearing on the behaviors of private parties. FWIW I'm not taking a pro-monopoly stance here. Just think it's important to educate the public that the First Amendment is a lot more limited than the average American believes that it is.

jaggednad 9y ago
You’re right. I think we need further legislation to bring out the “true meaning of our creed”, as we did in generations past.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  which generation was that and what legislation are you referring to? reminds me of 15 year olds born after the PATRIOT ACT exclaiming "this isn't the America I grew up in"
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    Exponential curves have no "knee." There's no point in American history that you can point to as the inflection point of liberty. It just gets worse every year - except for the slices carved out by activists.
sandworm101 9y ago
It has happened before. Once upon a time railroad barons started collecting companies together. From that we got antitrust rules. Media owners are the modern railroad barons in that control over one asset (last-mile internet) grants them leverage over a great many others. To follow Herbert's "golden path" principal: we may need for it to get truly horrible for a generation or more before people stand up to say never again.
shkkmo 9y ago
> Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment Not true. While the First Amendment does provide many protections for free press and there are no national press shield laws, many states in the US provide additional free press protections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat... Please stop trying to hijack discussion of free speech and free press (both of which are human rights / social institutions that extend beyond the scope of protections provided via the court due to the First Amendment) into being discussions of the First Amendment in the name of "education".

pbkhrv 9y ago

> Are there any movements to combat this and prevent more local papers and tv stations from becoming smaller delivery mechanisms for the same partisan bullshit? Not sure about movements, but maybe build products and systems and infrastructure that would enable smaller newspapers and tv stations to make money while staying independent? Better crowdfunding, micropayments, better paywalls, better media distribution channels, tools for local communities to get involved? Bottom-up solutions like these are hard to implement, because they are decentralized and require an active base, but can be done.

CoffeeDregs 9y ago

While I disagree with a lot of what Pai is doing, this doesn't seem bad and actually seems to reflect reality: > On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate > the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV > station in a major market. This already exists. Newspapers are all now websites (basically), so CNN is effectively a newspaper/website that owns a TV station (or vice versa)... No significant newspaper is limited to a major market and I'm unsure of the benefit of a 42yo rule that has a limited relevance to our current reality. Under current regulations, BuzzFeed can buy WNBC in NYC but The NYTimes cannot? Unfortunately, Pai's logic seems to make some sense. > more than 39 percent of U.S. television households But the above 39% thing is totally baffling. From the Justice Department: > The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 > and 2,500 points to be moderately concentrated, and consider markets in > which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points to be highly concentrated. A Herfindahl-Hirschman Index including this one company (@ 40%) would be 1,600 (40%^2). That one company causes the market to be "moderately concentrated" and we're removing this limit. That's completely insane.

philamonster 9y ago

>How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? https://vine.co/v/hMiITBPJUlw https://vine.co/v/hMiITBPJUlw