Reply With Quote
and the 5 people that still read newspapers said woo hoo.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...ules-fcc_n.htm
Court restores ban on newspaper, TV ownership
By Joelle Tessler, Associated PressUpdated 2h 25m ago
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has restored a longstanding ban that prevents U.S. media companies from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission didn't give the public adequate opportunity to comment on new rules that lifted the ban in the 20 largest media markets. The appeals court sent the rules back to the FCC to be rewritten.
The so-called cross-ownership ban dates back to 1975 — a time when newspapers dominated the media industry. In 2007, then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a Bush administration appointee, moved to ease those restrictions in the biggest media markets. He argued that the ban no longer made sense in a media landscape that had been upended by the Internet and had left many daily newspapers struggling for survival.
Public interest groups challenged Martin's move and warned that too much consolidation would lead to less diversity in news coverage.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, head of the non-profit law firm Media Access Project, which led the challenge, hailed Thursday's ruling. "We're extremely pleased that the court recognized that the public has a right to a diverse media environment," he said.
Congress requires the FCC to review its media-ownership rules every four years. Those rules include the cross-ownership restrictions and limits on the number of television and radio stations that one company can own in a market. Thursday's ruling comes as the current FCC, now under Democratic control, is seeking to wrap up its latest review, which began last year.
In a statement Thursday, the FCC said the current review will allow it to take "appropriate steps to ensure that the nation's media marketplace remains healthy and vibrant."
and the 5 people that still read newspapers said woo hoo.
Dumb ban/ruling.
I think if there is to be a ban, it needs to be a a maximum percentage of market share they can purchase.
Are you saying that you would agree with some form of ban? I'm surprised WC.
Sometimes regulation is necessary.
Why would regulation be necessary in this case? If the market doesn't like the media being produced because it's slanted/biased/lies, shouldn't there be demand for an alternate media source?
How many two newspaper towns are there?
"shouldn't there be demand for an alternate media source?"
more "free market solves everything" fantasies.
demand doesn't create the source. The source needs a business plan, advertising revenue, products.
It's never good to have all sources of local news owned by the same group of people and providing the same slant. Alternate media sources don't just crop up (high startup costs, trying to pull a new audience, it's time consuming and expensive). Just because there is demand doesn't mean a supply will come along to meet it.
However, the internet has changed that quite a bit, since anyone can start up a "news" site for very little financial commitment, etc. Which is basically why the ban was lifted back in 2007. It's become easy to start a competing interprise, albeit limited in scope.
Ban is good but feels like nothing but a drop in a huge ass bucket.
You made my point for me with your second paragraph.
The problem is that the internet does not necessarily mean a large reach. I'm very much afraid of these incredibly large media corporations because of the power they have over our information. I mean look at what Murdoch's company has been doing in Britain. WH posted a thread on the subject if you're not aware. There needs to be checks and balances and while I don't feel this particular law is very effective anymore I still think that the DOJ and FCC have completely been complicit in the way companies like Clear Channel operate.
Good in theory, but it doesn't help newspapers' bottom lines
Yep, was trying to touch on both sides as I see it.
I still think it's important to have separate msm, but it's more important to keep one company from owning all the TV stations, or all the newspapers (when more than one), or all the news radio stations. I'm fine with a company owning a TV station, news radio station, and a newspaper. Not fine with a company owning ALL the TV stations, news radio stations, and newspapers.
I would argue that the internet does have a large enough reach to not need these kinds of law. But I could see where others think differently.
Now, if there are monopolies granted to a company (thinking of certain areas where there's only one cable provider) then that's a different story.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
