Media ownership: The Silence of the Lambs...

[Diane Monaco]

Nomi, thank you for your very informative comments...that have btw inspired 
me to learn more on the FCC.  But that aside, it is rather obvious that the 
FCC's Michael Powell is absurd and unbelievable, and his "deregulation is 
pro-competition" rhetoric is not only unsubstantiated but leading to just 
the opposite.  Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act (deregulation), media 
consolidation with its ever-increasing lobbying power ($421mln in political 
donations to Congress ...whoa) has led to:

1.  Restrictions on the "widest possible dissemination of information from 
diverse and antagonistic sources."

2.  Government prompted (FCC deregulation) and sanctioned (FCC silence) 
restrictions on the "free flow of ideas."

which is in violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the US 
Supreme Court in AP v. US (1945), see excerpt below:

"That [First] Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible 
dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is 
essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of 
a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not 
impede the free flow of ideas does not afford nongovernmental combinations 
a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed 
freedom.  Freedom to publish means freedom for all, and not for some. 
Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to 
combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from 
governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction 
repression of that freedom by private interests." [Associated Press v. 
United States 1945]

http://www.usscplus.com/online/cases/326/3260001.htm

Thanks again,
Diane

At 02:16 PM 1/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 1/30/2003 1:30:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>dmonaco at pop3.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>>...and why is the FCC so silent?  Who "owns/regulates/controls" whom?
>
>
>The FCC is silent, except for occasionally Michael Copps, the more vocal 
>Dem on the commission, because deregulator Michael Powell thinks bigger is 
>better (and he's got the widening girth this year to prove it - pardon the 
>low blow). He has stated on numerous occasions that content is not in the 
>jurisdiction of the FCC. He has said that he 'trusts' the 'media' to 
>select the best news and create the best programming and that it is not 
>his place to dictate what that means. He thereby acknowledges no 
>connection between deregulation, which he still advocates as being 
>pro-competitive, and corporate consolidation,
>  which he stresses can be in the 'public interest' and bad or restrictive 
> content due to restricted access resulting from too few companies owning 
> too many paths of access. Of course, he still doesn't see how current 
> policy unleashed an industry meltdown either.
>In terms of who controls whom - Congress sets overall regulatory policy, 
>based however, on recommendations from the FCC. The media / telecom 
>industry happens to be a particularly generous political donor. Since 
>1990, and mostly since 1996 deregulation, it has contributed over $421mln 
>in political donations to Congress on top of another $750mln to lobbyists. 
>That's second only to the financial industry.
>
>Nomi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030201/dcb0dc06/attachment.htm>