Tired… and Sick… of Broadcast Industry Greed

Here’s one of those obligatory blog posts that explains why posting has been light. I’m working too hard, and this week got a nasty cold, which means I come home from work and pretty much pass out. I’m lucky to have sick time to take, but have had too many projects that I really shouldn’t drop if at all possible. So with just a few minutes to go before radioshow airtime, I have enough energy to drop a little post. I reckon you’ll hear more from me this weekend, ’cause I have to spend a lot of time in front of this blasted computer to get something else done for Monday.

Anyway, as if on cue I see that the broadcasters are pushing for loosening ownership rules again, getting the chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee on board. I hope maybe somebody on Capitol Hill remembers 2003 when Michael Powell got his ass handed to him over loosening ownership rules.

If nothing else, this is more evidence that legislative battles are never won when your enemy has the power of the campaign donation purse. The greedy bastards that raped and pillaged the FM band now want to pillage TV and newspaper with the elimination of the rules that keep the likes of Clear Channel and Sinclair crossing over from one market to another.

Time to make a ruckus and remind the greedy bastards and their kept congresscritters that we haven’t forgotten.

No related posts.

media ownership & consolidation, mediageek status | Paul | February 17, 2006 4:00 pm

6 Comments

By George, February 18, 2006 @ 1:49 am

Powell got his ass handed to him because he attempted to loosen the rules without consulting Congress. Congress gives out the candy, not a regulatory agency. Powell didn’t know that. So they slapped his hands. The new guy is smarter.

Keep in mind that the people of this country have given Republicans all the keys. They run the White House, the Congress, and now the Supreme Court. The FCC has a Republican majority. You can “remind” them all you want. It’s their candy store. If you’re in the minority, you have no power. That’s how things work.

If you’re going to get mad about radio, get your facts straight.
By George, February 18, 2006 @ 1:56 am

Also, keep in mind, this is one Representative out of 435 members. He is stating his opinion. He is not putting forth legislation. When things get serious, there will be hearings, and all sides will have a chance to weigh in. Making a rukus now is way way to early.
By Paul, February 18, 2006 @ 8:51 am

Frankly, George, you’re laying out a myopic and simplistic view of how the legislative-regulatory system works. In fact, I DO “have my facts” straight.

Your read on Powell is at best 30% correct. Yes, Congressional Republicans did come out against them, but only after their constituents flooded their offices with letters, emails, faxes and phone calls in opposition to the FCC’s loosened rules.

Also, the head of a major House committee is not just one representative stating his opinion. Upton is the agenda setter for telecomm policy in the House. The purpose of his little speech was to send a warning shot over the bow as to what his intentions are. Sure, he can’t do it alone, but House Republicans, in particular, have a habit of teaming together.

It’s always better to head them of at the pass, and if you wait until the legislation is on the floor, then you’ve lost your opportunity.

Unlike you, I actually know a couple of folks who’ve worked in Congressional offices on communications issues, and they’ve told me exactly how it works.

Most of what you seem to comment here is knee-jerk, at best, George. And for all of your exhortations that I “get my facts straight,” your comments seem to be strangely fact-free, and opinion-rich.

I do think it’s time you started your own blog… it’s not that hard and you already own a domain.
By George, February 18, 2006 @ 9:29 am

I spent 18 years in Washington and covered the hearings you refered to. I was there in 2003. I know what the issues were. The majority of Congressmen had no trouble with the rules Powell proposed. Their concern was the way he went about doing it. Which is why neither the House nor the Senate were able to pass legislation on this subject. Activist groups were forced to take the rules to the courts. The courts have also ruled that the rules Powell proposed were legal. They just questioned the methodology.

Regrading Upton, is it actually ON the agenda yet? No. When it is, there will be hearings and all sides will be heard.

The people you know are one-sided activists who have political agendas. I read their articles and their views do not represent those of the majority of people in this country.

I am researching my own blog, and I will start one soon. However, if you really believe in free speech, and really believe in all the things you say, you should welcome opposing viewpoints, and not be so quick to shoot them down. Real free speech is NOT about everyone agreeing with you, or preaching to the coverted. It’s about the free flow of ideas. Practice what you preach.
By Paul, February 18, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

George, I find it odd that you tell me to “welcome opposing viewpoints, and not be so quick to shoot them down.” First, I clearly welcome opposing viewpoints by not only allowing for public comments, but also personally answerint them.

And, secondly, I don’t shoot down opposing viewpoints — I debate. Frankly, I don’t think I use a hostile tone, and my approach is in line with the one you take.

I will say that you consistently strike the pose that you speak from “fact” and yet I don’t see that evidence anywhere. I’m open about not pretending to be a journalist, and I don’t expect anyone to take a single thing I say on my word.

Rather, I post my viewpoints, sometimes I post links to appropriate sources that some may find credible, and I try to lay open my reasoning process. When someone, like you, challenges my position, I defend it.

If I find something in your argument that makes sense to me, I say so. But just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I shoot it down.

I encourage you to have your own blog because I that is what I preach. I preach that everyone should have his or her own venue to express him or herself. So while you’re free to take advantage of the comment function on mediageek, it’s a limited venue for your thoughts, since you’re pretty well limited to just responding to what I say.

Your litle rant about “Real free speech” is misplaced here because there is no evidence whatsoever that I oppose “the free flow of ideas.” This is not the Washington Post where I shut down comments when it gets too hot. I can take it, but I don’t have to be silent, either.
By George, February 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

I was reacting to the use of words like “myopic” and “simplistic” and “knee-jerk” in your previous comments. I don’t think any of those words fit my comments. They just didn’t agree with yours.

It is easy to find the evidence from where I base my comments. They are in the transcripts of the hearings in 2003, available at http://www.senate.gov. They are also in the 3rd Court of Appeals ruling on the media ownership rules.

I agree that you allow comments, and that is good. But by directing me to start my own blog, that implies you’d prefer me to go away and stop bothering you.

mediageek

"Eclectic" is just a nice way of saying, "lacking focus"