31 ms·

>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 ABCLAW 9y ago

>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.

jacquesm 9y ago
That's the same kind of thing companies will say when they remove a bunch of features and drop a product: it is to better serve you, the customer. Never mind that it is complete nonsense.
- amptorn 9y ago
  "No, see, us making more money always makes it possible for us to serve you better." And do you serve us better? "Oh no. God, no."
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    > "No, see, us making more money always makes it possible for us to serve you better." The key word there is “possible”. Money makes it possible to better serve you. They just choose not to.
- hexane360 9y ago
  "The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes. As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay. We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets. Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can." Quote from EA when asked why heroes took ridiculous playtime to unlock, skippable with microtransactions, for a $60 game.
fancyfacebook 9y ago
Is "pro competitive combination" the new nonsense phrase everyone is going to start repeating? The people who come up with these things sure do have a sense of humor.
ProAm 9y ago
> I'm not quite sure how the combination of a more consolidated industry and the removal of local studios results in stronger local voices. Hearing once voice will be more clear and therefore stronger.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
It isn't of course. And one only has go back and read the history of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)[1] where it was sued by other voices trying to break into a market dominated by a single media company. Oddly enough it is exactly like Google in a way, the ability to sustain a network depends on the ability to sell advertising which depends on viewership for pricing. And being unable to get viewership denies an ability to exist through advertising. So having a monopoly on advertising makes you the defacto monopoly on the viewership because it denies capital to a competitor to develop additional viewership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC
Delmania 9y ago
It won't; this move was done to benefit a media company known as Sinclair. This company has a decidedly pro-Trump stance, and they require the local stations they control to air pro-Trump commentary. Make no mistake this is a political move, and one that is right out of a fascist/authoritarian playbook.
- RIMR 9y ago
  Here's a sample of some of the propaganda Sinclair requires its stations to broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E Seattle's KOMO news crams all of these ridiculous political segments (including Clinton smear-pieces and other alt-right recruitment videos) into their 2-4am slots just to keep too many viewers from seeing them.
  - losteric 9y ago
    I often wonder why they don't air these videos at peak hour, prefixed with a "you're about to see some bullshit - call your representatives" warning. It's better to fight this kind of public enemy on an open field.
    - wyldfire 9y ago
      I guess it's nice to think about, but that would be insubordinate to their management/ownership. Individuals who execute plans like that lose out big time and get quickly replaced.
- powertower 9y ago
  > This company has a decidedly pro-Trump stance, and they require the local stations they control to air pro-Trump commentary. Whether they do, or they don't, that is exactly how it works on the left right now. You have to constantly bring up and talk about race, religion, and sex/gender, and be fully anti-Trump - or you are out. > Make no mistake this is a political move, and one that is right out of a fascist/authoritarian playbook. Move against a move. 85% of the media before, during, and after the election has been coordinating a non-stop anti-Trump campaign with made-up stories that are not based in reality (the only time they talked positive on Trump was when he launched cruise missiles into Syria). Some programming even goes to the edge - saying 'Why not kill Trump?' - and gets away with it. Countering leftist-propaganda and fighting globalist fascism is not fascism; using the fascism/nazi label to describe every situation that you do not agree with as so, is.
rayiner 9y ago
Note the new rules only permit one entity to own two of the top four stations in a market, addressing the only real consolidation concern (that the natural scarcity of radio channels would allow natural radio monopolies to form). But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area?
- wfo 9y ago
  >But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area? Very, very few regulations are designed with the sole purpose of dealing with natural monopoly. Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable. Having a tiny group of wealthy oligarchs own all media, press, acceptable thought in an area is one of those horrifying dystopian consequences that we apply these regulations to prevent. Be careful any time you see an analysis of media consolidation that ignores the reality on the ground -- the media's unique ability to define and shape public opinion. Such an analysis is either so purely academic as to be not relevant to any actual political or social discussion, hopelessly naive or, worse, willfully ignorant in service of a particular ideology.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable. When regulations aren’t designed to address identifiable market failure modes, like for example a natural monopoly or negative externality, they’re usually driven by vague public interest handwaving. Economic theory is hardly infallible, but it’s a lot better of a basis for law than that.
    - wfo 9y ago
      The public interest is not handwaving, it is the entire purpose of govermnent. Under your definition laws banning slavery for example are "public interest handwaving".
nicolashahn 9y ago
war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength
ksk 9y ago
It seems like one of the provisions was blocking local stations from jointly negotiating on advertising. I don't know if makes sense to limit broadcast media this way. Google is allowed to buy properties in different markets (search/youtube/mobile/news) to consolidate their position. I suppose now the non-internet media can compete with Google on advertising by consolidating. Anyway, this is just my take after a cursory glance. Happy to listen to other viewpoints.
1_2__4 9y ago
Remember that you can pretty much bank on: . When a Republican politician accuses someone else of something, they're doing it themselves. . When a Republican politician makes a claim on controversial legislation, the opposite of that claim is the truth. You can claim this is partisan grumbling, or you can pay attention and realize this is far more true than anyone would want to believe.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  Remember that you can pretty much bank on: . When a politician accuses someone else of something, they're doing it themselves. . When a politician makes a claim on controversial legislation, the opposite of that claim is the truth. Fixed that for you.
colordrops 9y ago
Just Orwellian doublespeak.
corndoge 9y ago
Never forget Clear Channel
- jack9 9y ago
  Now called I Heart Radio, iirc
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    Turns out that’s surprisingly complex. I was just going to clarify that iHeartMedia is the real answer, but: Clear Channel Communications as we know it became iHeartCommunications, wholly held by iHeartMedia, Inc., which is apparently distinct from the iHeartMedia division of iHeartMedia, Inc. That division operates iHeartRadio as a brand, I’m pretty sure, and inherited the Clear Channel IP and production-side stuff. I think a lot of the actual transmitter assets and licenses were held by CCC (or maybe CCB?), but the buyout that took them private meant they lost their FCC special treatment and had to park a bunch of stations on entities like Aloha until someone bought them. Which is about as slow a market as you’d expect a decade later: http://streamingradioguide.com/licensee-list.php?showall=on&licensee=ALOHA+STATION+TRUST%2C+LLC http://streamingradioguide.com/licensee-list.php?showall=on&... I’ve read the Wikipedia page a couple times now and still haven’t reverse engineered that labyrinth. Don’t read about mass media ownership in large doses; you’re likely to stroke out. Given the Bain buyout and associated debt has spun iHeartMedia firmly around the drain for years, it’s a bit amusing to see Pai soften up the very regulations that made it a complicated deal in the first place. Sinclair 1, Clear Channel 0.
redler 9y ago
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.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Trump handpicked these people to dismantle the Federal government's executive branch, and his base things it's gotten too strong. To them, regulations are overall an example of the problem. Tax reform - less taxes EPA - hired a guy who fought the EPA, authorized keystone pipeline immediately. Betsy Devoss - privatizing stuff and slashing budgets HUD - Ben Carson, neurosurgeon Department of Energy - Rick Perry who didn't know what it does and wanted to close it, who isn't a scientist And of course Ajit Pai, probably the best example of rollback of progress. Jeff Sessions disappointed Trump when he recused himself. You gotta understand... Trump's a fiscal conservative's dream. Short of Ron Paul no conservative would have the guts to sabotage the executive branch with crazy directors as much as Trump.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Pai was nominated by Obama, and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
    - Nicksil 9y ago
      Ajit Pai was appointed to the commission (as a member) by President Obama, and confirmed in 2012. President Trump placed Ajit Pai as Chairman in 2017.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      While true, this is not the full story. As I'm sure you know, the FCC is split between Republican and Democratic nominations by design, and Pai was nominated as the Republican option. It was Trump who appointed him as Chair, thus giving him the authority to carry out his (de)regulatory agenda.
EGreg 9y ago
It's just rhetoric, no one including the speaker actually believes it. "What we are doing will lead to more... Freedom Access Competition Quality" Regardless of the logical content of the argument. It's done on the Left as well, but Pai is especially egregious in his lack of steps of reasoning.
bcoates 9y ago
Traditional local media (broadcast radio, newspaper, broadcast TV) are oversupplied and under severe economic/competitive pressure; there needs to be less of them which means consolidation and winding down marginal operations. It's kind of unreasonable for regulators to be too harsh on consolidation in a shrinking market, what else are they going to do to survive?
- heroprotagonist 9y ago
  Broadcast for free online to increase their ad buys?
GiraffeGlove 9y ago
> I'm not quite sure how the combination of a more consolidated industry and the removal of local studios results in stronger local voices. It literally does the opposite

by ABCLAW 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

That's the same kind of thing companies will say when they remove a bunch of features and drop a product: it is to better serve you, the customer. Never mind that it is complete nonsense.

amptorn 9y ago
"No, see, us making more money always makes it possible for us to serve you better." And do you serve us better? "Oh no. God, no."
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  > "No, see, us making more money always makes it possible for us to serve you better." The key word there is “possible”. Money makes it possible to better serve you. They just choose not to.
hexane360 9y ago
"The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes. As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay. We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets. Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can." Quote from EA when asked why heroes took ridiculous playtime to unlock, skippable with microtransactions, for a $60 game.

fancyfacebook 9y ago

Is "pro competitive combination" the new nonsense phrase everyone is going to start repeating? The people who come up with these things sure do have a sense of humor.

ProAm 9y ago

> I'm not quite sure how the combination of a more consolidated industry and the removal of local studios results in stronger local voices. Hearing once voice will be more clear and therefore stronger.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

It isn't of course. And one only has go back and read the history of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)[1] where it was sued by other voices trying to break into a market dominated by a single media company. Oddly enough it is exactly like Google in a way, the ability to sustain a network depends on the ability to sell advertising which depends on viewership for pricing. And being unable to get viewership denies an ability to exist through advertising. So having a monopoly on advertising makes you the defacto monopoly on the viewership because it denies capital to a competitor to develop additional viewership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC

Delmania 9y ago

It won't; this move was done to benefit a media company known as Sinclair. This company has a decidedly pro-Trump stance, and they require the local stations they control to air pro-Trump commentary. Make no mistake this is a political move, and one that is right out of a fascist/authoritarian playbook.

RIMR 9y ago
Here's a sample of some of the propaganda Sinclair requires its stations to broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E Seattle's KOMO news crams all of these ridiculous political segments (including Clinton smear-pieces and other alt-right recruitment videos) into their 2-4am slots just to keep too many viewers from seeing them.
- losteric 9y ago
  I often wonder why they don't air these videos at peak hour, prefixed with a "you're about to see some bullshit - call your representatives" warning. It's better to fight this kind of public enemy on an open field.
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    I guess it's nice to think about, but that would be insubordinate to their management/ownership. Individuals who execute plans like that lose out big time and get quickly replaced.
powertower 9y ago
> This company has a decidedly pro-Trump stance, and they require the local stations they control to air pro-Trump commentary. Whether they do, or they don't, that is exactly how it works on the left right now. You have to constantly bring up and talk about race, religion, and sex/gender, and be fully anti-Trump - or you are out. > Make no mistake this is a political move, and one that is right out of a fascist/authoritarian playbook. Move against a move. 85% of the media before, during, and after the election has been coordinating a non-stop anti-Trump campaign with made-up stories that are not based in reality (the only time they talked positive on Trump was when he launched cruise missiles into Syria). Some programming even goes to the edge - saying 'Why not kill Trump?' - and gets away with it. Countering leftist-propaganda and fighting globalist fascism is not fascism; using the fascism/nazi label to describe every situation that you do not agree with as so, is.

rayiner 9y ago

Note the new rules only permit one entity to own two of the top four stations in a market, addressing the only real consolidation concern (that the natural scarcity of radio channels would allow natural radio monopolies to form). But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area?

wfo 9y ago
>But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area? Very, very few regulations are designed with the sole purpose of dealing with natural monopoly. Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable. Having a tiny group of wealthy oligarchs own all media, press, acceptable thought in an area is one of those horrifying dystopian consequences that we apply these regulations to prevent. Be careful any time you see an analysis of media consolidation that ignores the reality on the ground -- the media's unique ability to define and shape public opinion. Such an analysis is either so purely academic as to be not relevant to any actual political or social discussion, hopelessly naive or, worse, willfully ignorant in service of a particular ideology.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable. When regulations aren’t designed to address identifiable market failure modes, like for example a natural monopoly or negative externality, they’re usually driven by vague public interest handwaving. Economic theory is hardly infallible, but it’s a lot better of a basis for law than that.
  - wfo 9y ago
    The public interest is not handwaving, it is the entire purpose of govermnent. Under your definition laws banning slavery for example are "public interest handwaving".

nicolashahn 9y ago

war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength

ksk 9y ago

It seems like one of the provisions was blocking local stations from jointly negotiating on advertising. I don't know if makes sense to limit broadcast media this way. Google is allowed to buy properties in different markets (search/youtube/mobile/news) to consolidate their position. I suppose now the non-internet media can compete with Google on advertising by consolidating. Anyway, this is just my take after a cursory glance. Happy to listen to other viewpoints.

1_2__4 9y ago

Remember that you can pretty much bank on: . When a Republican politician accuses someone else of something, they're doing it themselves. . When a Republican politician makes a claim on controversial legislation, the opposite of that claim is the truth. You can claim this is partisan grumbling, or you can pay attention and realize this is far more true than anyone would want to believe.

oarsinsync 9y ago
Remember that you can pretty much bank on: . When a politician accuses someone else of something, they're doing it themselves. . When a politician makes a claim on controversial legislation, the opposite of that claim is the truth. Fixed that for you.

colordrops 9y ago

Just Orwellian doublespeak.

corndoge 9y ago

Never forget Clear Channel

jack9 9y ago
Now called I Heart Radio, iirc
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  Turns out that’s surprisingly complex. I was just going to clarify that iHeartMedia is the real answer, but: Clear Channel Communications as we know it became iHeartCommunications, wholly held by iHeartMedia, Inc., which is apparently distinct from the iHeartMedia division of iHeartMedia, Inc. That division operates iHeartRadio as a brand, I’m pretty sure, and inherited the Clear Channel IP and production-side stuff. I think a lot of the actual transmitter assets and licenses were held by CCC (or maybe CCB?), but the buyout that took them private meant they lost their FCC special treatment and had to park a bunch of stations on entities like Aloha until someone bought them. Which is about as slow a market as you’d expect a decade later: http://streamingradioguide.com/licensee-list.php?showall=on&licensee=ALOHA+STATION+TRUST%2C+LLC http://streamingradioguide.com/licensee-list.php?showall=on&... I’ve read the Wikipedia page a couple times now and still haven’t reverse engineered that labyrinth. Don’t read about mass media ownership in large doses; you’re likely to stroke out. Given the Bain buyout and associated debt has spun iHeartMedia firmly around the drain for years, it’s a bit amusing to see Pai soften up the very regulations that made it a complicated deal in the first place. Sinclair 1, Clear Channel 0.

redler 9y ago

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.

EGreg 9y ago
Trump handpicked these people to dismantle the Federal government's executive branch, and his base things it's gotten too strong. To them, regulations are overall an example of the problem. Tax reform - less taxes EPA - hired a guy who fought the EPA, authorized keystone pipeline immediately. Betsy Devoss - privatizing stuff and slashing budgets HUD - Ben Carson, neurosurgeon Department of Energy - Rick Perry who didn't know what it does and wanted to close it, who isn't a scientist And of course Ajit Pai, probably the best example of rollback of progress. Jeff Sessions disappointed Trump when he recused himself. You gotta understand... Trump's a fiscal conservative's dream. Short of Ron Paul no conservative would have the guts to sabotage the executive branch with crazy directors as much as Trump.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Pai was nominated by Obama, and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
  - Nicksil 9y ago
    Ajit Pai was appointed to the commission (as a member) by President Obama, and confirmed in 2012. President Trump placed Ajit Pai as Chairman in 2017.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    While true, this is not the full story. As I'm sure you know, the FCC is split between Republican and Democratic nominations by design, and Pai was nominated as the Republican option. It was Trump who appointed him as Chair, thus giving him the authority to carry out his (de)regulatory agenda.

EGreg 9y ago

It's just rhetoric, no one including the speaker actually believes it. "What we are doing will lead to more... Freedom Access Competition Quality" Regardless of the logical content of the argument. It's done on the Left as well, but Pai is especially egregious in his lack of steps of reasoning.

bcoates 9y ago

Traditional local media (broadcast radio, newspaper, broadcast TV) are oversupplied and under severe economic/competitive pressure; there needs to be less of them which means consolidation and winding down marginal operations. It's kind of unreasonable for regulators to be too harsh on consolidation in a shrinking market, what else are they going to do to survive?

heroprotagonist 9y ago
Broadcast for free online to increase their ad buys?

GiraffeGlove 9y ago

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