2003-06-05|8:17 p.m.
A week or so ago, before June 2nd of course (when the FCC sold our souls to the devil), I went to a talk about the deregulations that my House Representative Bob Filner, who I adore, and his friend Bernie Sanders, who is also an HR, were hosting. The talk brought in over 500 people and forced latecomers like A and I to sit outside with speakers which became the overflow spot.
Bernie, an Independent from the lovely state of Vermont and staunchly non-partisan, is an expert on rulemaking in communications and the FCC board. Bernie did most of the talking. He�s a wonderfully down to earth speaker and doesn�t hesitate to make a few jokes and rattle the few conservatives, who thought this was a partisan issue, in the audience.
He opened the talk by asking how many of us were concerned about issues like healthcare, education, taxes, national security, etc. The audience all started mumbling that they did. So, he said, �Ok, if you care even slightly about any political issue, then you must care about what the FCC plans to do June 2nd.�
He went on to explain that the changes would allow, for the first time in nearly 30 years, a company to own a newspaper and a television station in the same city. They would also raise limits on the size of broadcast television networks. The networks would be able to own stationsthat reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent. AOL Time Warner could merge ownership with Clear Channel and own both cable and radio broadcasting. Basically, ownership is now going to become very narrow. Everything we hear, watch, and read will be in the power and influence of fewer and fewer entities. Rupert Murdoch (who is responsible for FOX) apparently already owns considerable amounts of the cable stations in Britain, Canada, Australia, China and the US. Shit, just owning any cable stations in the US makes for a global power over what people have access to.
These sources are our forum in which we talk to each other about the issues that matter to our daily lives. What makes us think that Rupert Murdoch, a multi-billionaire with mega-rich economical concerns, is going to promote discussion (especially liberal discussion) that is �fair and balanced?� What is his incentive to cover topics that deal with taxes that affect the poor and middle class?
There�s a reason that almost every political talk show host on basic cable is conservative. There�s a reason that CSPAN, maybe CNN, and, strangely enough, the Daily Show are the only places that you�re even going to hear about the latest legislation being passed and discussed. How many of us know (unless they get weekly emails from the ACLU [I cheat and am lazy]) that just recently the House narrowly passed the flag desecration amendment which will alter the First Amendment for the first time in its history and allow Congress to outlaw the physical desecration of the flag? The fact is most of us don�t know. But there�s plenty of information about who is the new American Idol. We have no clue what freedoms we have or are about to have taken away, myself included. We only have access to what we can gain access to. Not to include the fact that most Americans work over 50 hours a week! Who has time (or the desire anymore) to search far and wide for what the powers are deciding for us and the rest of the world?
Bernie addressed some of the opposing concerns. One of which was that maybe there wasn�t any liberal political talk show hosts who were funny enough or that could bring up an acceptable audience base. Bernie laughed. It�s not a genetic fact that conservatives are funnier than liberals. That�s just absurd. Just watch the Daily Show and you�ll see that maybe the opposite is even more true. In fact, just recently a staffer at MSNBC leaked the email that explained why Donahue�s late talk show was pulled from the air. Not because it lacked the viewership, but because they felt he was "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." They never told Donahue why.
If liberals aren�t marketable, then why was Michael Moore�s �Bowling for Columbine� the highest grossing documentary of all time? Why do his books continue to sit at number one on best seller lists all over the world years after they were written? I am not the only one that thinks he�s funny, brilliant, and in touch with a lot of people�s feelings about the issues that matter to us.
Bernie also addressed the concern that perhaps this wasn�t a political issue. That it was a issue of capitalism and nothing more. Again he laughed. Nothing was more a political issue. Again, he reiterated the fact that these things were our way to know about what was going on.
And like I said, over 500 people from just my small town (Chula Vista is small within the large county of San Diego) showed up, half of which had to sit outside, to hear what these men had to say. It�s not just that Americans are lazy and completely disillusioned. We care enough to show up. We even care enough to send over 500,000 e-mail comments, 97% of which were against the deregulations, to the FCC site. Two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs collected 170,000 signatures on a petition to the FCC, urging the agency to keep the rules in place. And even the most (crazy, with exception to the Christian Right, and) conservative National Rifle Association sent over 300,000 postcards demanding the same. Although it�s hard to stay hopeful about the power that we have as individual citizens when the FCC received all this concern and still voted for the deregulations anyway.
But this may be some insight as to why:
From an article from today�s Washington Post a study done by the Center for Public Integrity found this about the FCC:
�Not so widely covered was an interesting and enlightening study by the Center for Public Integrity on the "cozy" relationship between F.C.C. officials and the telecommunications and broadcasting industries they are supposed to be regulating.
The center examined the travel records of F.C.C. employees and found that over the last eight years, commissioners and staff members have taken 2,500 trips costing $2.8 million that were �primarily� paid for by members of the telecommunications and broadcast industries.
The top destination was Las Vegas, with 330 trips. Second was New Orleans, with 173 trips. And third was New York, with 102 trips. Other �popular� destinations were London (98 trips), San Francisco, Palm Springs, Buenos Aires and Beijing.�
Even worse is:
�The fact is that many government agencies accept millions of dollars annually from industries and other special interests for trips to meetings, conferences, retreats, whatever. The government beneficiaries of this largess are frequently wined and dined in luxurious settings. They network. They party. And they will tell you they are not influenced at all by this wonderful treatment.�
�The Center for Public Integrity reported that there were more than 70 closed-door meetings in recent months between F.C.C. officials and representatives of the nation's top broadcasters, including very powerful chief executives, to discuss the relaxation of media ownership restrictions, the key issue that was voted on Monday.�
Still think these companies are coming up with the best way to be FAIR AND BALANCED?
And the thing that made me most sad was a study done on how the deregulations from 1996 affected children�s programming:
-The overall number of children's shows decreased by almost half (47 percent) over the past five years, from a total of 88 programs per week across all stations in 1998, to just 47 shows in 2003.
-The largest decrease in programming for children occurred at stations that are part of so-called "duopolies," where one company owns two broadcast stations in the same media market. For example, in 1998, KCOP (an independently-owned UPN affiliate) and KTTV (Fox- owned and operated) aired 14 and 21 shows geared toward children, respectively. By 2003, after Fox's parent company, News Corporation, had purchased KCOP, it was airing just four children's series and KTTV was airing just seven, representing a 71 percent decrease in such programming on KCOP and a 67 percent decrease at KTTV.
-After KCBS' parent corporation, Viacom, purchased the independent KCAL, children's programming fell from 26 hours per week (18 shows) in 1998 to three hours (four shows) in 2003, a decrease of 89 percent. KCBS maintained a program lineup of three hours (six shows) weekly in both years, the minimum amount required under FCC guidelines.
But I swear that there�s still hope. I always swear that there is. Some Senators are supposedly readdressing the issue and calling for a Senate hearing on the issue. I didn�t believe we had a chance to reverse the FCC�s mind, but we DO have power in pressuring those in Senate and especially the House who depend on our vote to keep their jobs. I am sorry to ask this, but please write your Senators and House Representative about this. Tell as many people as you can to write their Senators. It works on both sides. If you don�t want our communications to be gobbled up by a handful of men who I GUARANTEE don�t give a shit about your concerns, especially liberal but also conservative (there�s a reason that the NRA is so upset), then WRITE! PLEASE!
Here�s a letter that I am sending. You�re welcome to use it. I wrote it from parts of an ACLU letter that the ACLU asked me to send, so really it�s more theirs than mine and I am sure they would not mind people getting active about this issue. It basically says that Congress should make FCC decisions transparent to both the public and Congress and to make it a process in which we have a voice. Here it is (feel free to edit it for yourself, as well):
Dear Congressperson:
On June 2nd of 2003, the Federal Communications Commission made considerable changes to its media ownership rules that will significantly develop a concentration of media ownership. I strongly request that you, my Congressperson, push your Congressional body to hold a hearing to address the concerns that many Americans have about the recent FCC decision. Many Americans, including myself, believe that it is necessary that Congress establishes a specific rule or rules, hold public hearings, that allow the public and Congress to review and comment on any proposed rules by the FCC prior to final adoption.
This decision that allows greater concentration and cross-ownership of media may have a profound impact on Americans� access to a wide range of news, information, programming, and political commentary. Despite tremendous advances in telecommunications, Americans predominantly gain information from television, radio, and newspapers. For the relatively small percentage of Americans who turn to the Internet for their news, television-affiliated web sites dominate. The mass media, therefore, provides the information Americans need to fully participate in our democratic society. The recent decision by the FCC may seriously affect vigorous public debate and the marketplace of ideas.
One of my concerns is that there are public access to many �products� in the realm of news, opinion, and information. Government action should be exercised to promote greater competition and thus to encourage diversity of views. Extreme care should be taken by the Congress to see that as a practical matter, no monopoly in the presentation of news and opinion is created. Any media ownership rule the FCC adopts must permit a factual determination as to whether a particular media combination would adversely affect the diversity of expression and independence of editorial content, or result in substantial lessening of competition.
I recognize the question of whether concentration will always lead to a lessening of diversity of opinion expressed in the mass media is unsettled. It is for this reason that it is imperative that there be the widest possible comment on any proposed rule, so the Commission may fairly and impartially evaluate whether it will promote or hinder such diversity.
Hindering public comment is the fact that no rule has yet been proposed. The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on media ownership, but proposed no actual rule upon which the public could comment. Thus, the public and Congress have had no opportunity to comment on specific changes and their possible effect on diversity. While there may be a difference of opinion on whether media concentration automatically results in lack of diversity, relaxation of the rules could have such a consequence. For this reason, the opportunity for the public and Congress to comment on a specific proposed rule is necessary.
June 2nd�s decision of the media concentration rules could have enormous consequences for the marketplace of ideas that is so vital to our nation. The public interest requires that any proposed changes to the rules be made in the open, with full and fair opportunity for all interested parties to comment. I urge you, my Congressperson, to propose a rule, and allow hearings and public comment on this extremely important issue.
Thank you,
M
MOM: I don�t like liberals.
Me: Does that include me?
MOM: No, I love you honey.
Me: But if I ran for a political office, would you vote for me, your daughter?
MOM: No. I love you, but no. I don�t agree with your views.
Me: You don�t even think I have the right judgment for the job? You know how much energy and study I put into this though and how much that I care. I am not just a liberal.
MOM: Let�s not talk about this.
Something a lot less serious and MUCH more funny (and of course not written by me) is the journal of Kim Jong Il.
notapoliscistudent: isnt that a bseball player
shesajarofcandy: no
shesajarofcandy: he�s the ruler of north korea