FCC relaxes media ownership rules

From CNN/Money

Seeing how wide-sweeping this rule is, one wonders how long before IGN starts knocking on Elysium and Certis' doors.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From CNN/Money

Seeing how wide-sweeping this rule is, one wonders how long before IGN starts knocking on Elysium and Certis'' doors.

IGN owns you.

Can you answer some questiosn for me? What outlets will these new rules affect? How will they be affected? Will these new rules stop people from starting new outlets? Does it affect every medium? How will this change my viewing habits? Will channels of news be closed down because of these rules? Can you give me an example of a network, radio station, or paper that will be closed down because of these new rules? How will this affect my local news coverage?

I''ve not researched this at all. I did go to Moveon.org and they were mad at Fox News. Funny, they didn''t mind CNN when they were the only game in town.

Simply put, AOL/Time Warner, News Corp. (Fox), General Electric (NBC), Disney (ABC), and Viacom (CBS), can own more. The ruling says that the percantage of the audience limit for one group to be able to reach is now 45%, up from 35%. They can buy more TV stations (instead of licensing). They can buy more newspapers. They can buy more radio stations (as if ClearChannel wasn''t big enough as it is). And they can buy more Internet outlets. The pro side of the argument says that the 35% rule was out of date and didn''t take into account the Internet and cable/satellite TV. The con side says that it puts too much control on content in the hands of too few. This will definitely get reviewed by Congress. And since the opposition to this is spearheaded by the National Rifle Association AND the National Organization of Women, this stands a good chance of getting knocked down. If you think the media is too liberal, chances are you don''t like the prospect of Ted Turner expanding his empire even more. If you think Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailses are just mouth-pieces of a conservative/corporate agenda, you probably don''t like this.

You know, I probably come off as completely schitzo saying this, but I think it''s a good thing. I really want to see deregulation, because in the end, if you don''t like media consolidation, you want deregulation. The media conglomorates are thier own worst enemy, and the more freedom they have the quicker they will shoot themselves in the foot. If FOX owned every radio station, tv station and newspaper in town, how long would it take for a local startup to capture a decent chunk of the market, simply by meeting the demand for alternate programming. When everyone sounds the same, people begin to crave something different. And the more startups happen, theres a good chance one or two will be a player. And suddenly you have more players, and less media consolidation. Except this time its determined by free market conditions and not the FCC dividing the pie manually.

Just my 2 cents.

Dammit Pyro, as a liberal you''re under an obligation to think every legislation passed under the Bush administration will lead to an apocalyptic end! I have a copy of your signed Liberal Nut Job contract right here.

I joke, because actually I agree with Pyro. There''re bigger fish to fry.

"Elysium" wrote:

Dammit Pyro, as a liberal you''re under an obligation to think every legislation passed under the Bush administration will lead to an apocalyptic end! I have a copy of your signed Liberal Nut Job contract right here.

I joke, because actually I agree with Pyro. There''re bigger fish to fry.

Yes...the date 6/6/ is coming up, which means that Bush will try to eat the planet and destroy all life.

which means that Bush will try to eat the planet and destroy all life.

Just like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich did.

"Elysium" wrote:

Dammit Pyro, as a liberal you''re under an obligation to think every legislation passed under the Bush administration will lead to an apocalyptic end! I have a copy of your signed Liberal Nut Job contract right here.

I joke, because actually I agree with Pyro. There''re bigger fish to fry.

You''d be suprised. If it came to Congress, a lot of Republicans would vote against this.

Actually, this makes it very difficult for new outlets. If a few companies own the distribution channels, content creators will feed them programming, because they''re the only game in town. Some small tv station just can''t compete. The large corporations can always use the MS tactics and pressure media companies to not deal with the little guys.
On the radio side, you''ll get ClearChannel regulating more and more playlists, leading to much less variety in the music stations play. This leads to fewer bands getting exposure, which leads to fewer CD sales, which makes the RIAA lose money. The RIAA of course, will blame piracy and crack down even more. I read that Clearchannel is actually opposed to the new rules though. Apparently, the FCC closed some loophole that let them own more stations in a given market then they should have or something.

Anyone recall ClearChannel''s banned music list after 9-11?